That seems like a fair summary and since my preference is clearly the
minority one, I'm happy to stick with 'make as-is'. The new mode for
pulling updates will help, as well.
Sam
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 7:52 AM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > Does another system have a Racket-like in-place option (that works
> > better)?
>
> I haven't used it, but
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are
>> packages in "main-distribution",
>
>
> Personally, I have used the 'same' one-line command
> going back t
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are
> packages in "main-distribution",
Personally, I have used the 'same' one-line command
going back to csv through svn and now git (_update).
When I write "Speaking as t
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only
>> "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt
>> people expect `make` in the Rac
At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only
> "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt
> people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their
> software somewhere else on
On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only
> "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt
> people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their
> software somewhere else on the
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Continuing in reverse order:
>
> - My sense is that the switch to `make` so that it updates packages,
> which was a result of
>
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2015-January/065345.html
>
> has been a good change for most people
That would work great for me. And I think that I recall that "make
base" is the target that I would use to build enough to be able to run
`raco pkg update --all --auto --pull try` and then finish off with
`raco setup`, right?
Robby
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Continu
Continuing in reverse order:
- My sense is that the switch to `make` so that it updates packages,
which was a result of
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2015-January/065345.html
has been a good change for most people most of the time.
The `as-is` target is currently available for bui
I think there are two seperable issues here:
1. Can we make `raco pkg update -a` better/more robust in this case?
2. Should `make` run `raco pkg update -a`?
In reverse order:
- I think `make`, by default, shouldn't update anything, and that we
should have a different Makefile target which updat
Sam and I have run into a situation where `make` fails because we've
set up clone pkgs and made local modifications in a way that makes the
git commands fail [*].
My guess is that the right thing to do is for me to know about these
pkgs and do something special when running make. I'm thinking that
12 matches
Mail list logo
