Re: [racket-users] Rationale for package structure

[schle...@gmail.com]

But you can also define two single collection packages that use the same 
`(define collection "...")` within the info.rkt.
And that allows you to add modules with single collection packages.
Only tested locally but seems to work.

ded...@gmail.com schrieb am Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2021 um 21:45:15 UTC+2:

> It's been a while since I created a new package, but as of ~1 year ago, 
> another advantage (or perhaps the same, from a different angle) of the 
> multi-collection format was that it allowed third parties to add modules to 
> the collections I defined.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 1:58 PM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users <
> racket...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I’ve always used the single collection format [1] in my packages.
>>
>> However, I see a lot of package authors will use a multi-collection 
>> format and split the library, documentation and maybe tests out into 
>> separate collections.
>>
>> What are the benefits of splitting the main library and its documentation 
>> into separate collections?
>>
>> [1]: 
>> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3amulti-collection%29
>>
>> -- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Racket Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to racket-users...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6ea9f50e-0d4f-4800-bc17-d31979a614cfn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/f5b0fb1d-d26f-4eda-9915-72143b5f48e4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [racket-users] Rationale for package structure

[Eric Griffis]

It's been a while since I created a new package, but as of ~1 year ago,
another advantage (or perhaps the same, from a different angle) of the
multi-collection format was that it allowed third parties to add modules to
the collections I defined.

Eric


On Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 1:58 PM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I’ve always used the single collection format [1] in my packages.
>
> However, I see a lot of package authors will use a multi-collection format
> and split the library, documentation and maybe tests out into separate
> collections.
>
> What are the benefits of splitting the main library and its documentation
> into separate collections?
>
> [1]:
> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3amulti-collection%29
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6ea9f50e-0d4f-4800-bc17-d31979a614cfn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAORuSUwGH0vAZvx-Y7jQNEqzwhks8X-%2B0y4t_m6Nc_%3DTWW45YA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] Rationale for package structure

[jackh...@gmail.com]

I don't bother with the splitting because it's a *lot* of maintenance 
headache for little gain. My opinion is that we should take the collective 
effort we've poured into splitting packages and instead direct it at 
improving the compiler and package system to do a better job of automating 
this process.

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 9:44:03 AM UTC-7 samdph...@gmail.com wrote:

> The --binary flag only works for the current release with the default 
> catalog iirc.
>
> Cheers,
> Sam
>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 11:58 Sorawee Porncharoenwase  
> wrote:
>
>> I think it's so that `raco pkg install mypkg-lib` won't install 
>> `racket-doc` if you use Minimal Racket?
>>
>> If you don't split `mypkg` to `mypkg-lib` and `mypkg-doc`, but specify 
>> `deps` and `build-deps` correctly, `raco pkg install --binary mypkg` won't 
>> pull in `racket-doc` either. I don't know when this feature was added 
>> though. Perhaps, it could be that the package splitting convention predates 
>> the feature, and the convention persists.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users <
>> racket...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve always used the single collection format [1] in my packages.
>>>
>>> However, I see a lot of package authors will use a multi-collection 
>>> format and split the library, documentation and maybe tests out into 
>>> separate collections.
>>>
>>> What are the benefits of splitting the main library and its 
>>> documentation into separate collections?
>>>
>>> [1]: 
>>> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3amulti-collection%29
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Racket Users" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to racket-users...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6ea9f50e-0d4f-4800-bc17-d31979a614cfn%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Racket Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to racket-users...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CADcuegs%3D-YZKaTSmPxreNekuUyxcyMG6AOSzxwnkCnr_8jBkgg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/b44536f8-d271-461a-9cb9-17b0da8625efn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [racket-users] Rationale for package structure

[Sam Phillips]

The --binary flag only works for the current release with the default
catalog iirc.

Cheers,
Sam

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 11:58 Sorawee Porncharoenwase 
wrote:

> I think it's so that `raco pkg install mypkg-lib` won't install
> `racket-doc` if you use Minimal Racket?
>
> If you don't split `mypkg` to `mypkg-lib` and `mypkg-doc`, but specify
> `deps` and `build-deps` correctly, `raco pkg install --binary mypkg` won't
> pull in `racket-doc` either. I don't know when this feature was added
> though. Perhaps, it could be that the package splitting convention predates
> the feature, and the convention persists.
>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users <
> racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I’ve always used the single collection format [1] in my packages.
>>
>> However, I see a lot of package authors will use a multi-collection
>> format and split the library, documentation and maybe tests out into
>> separate collections.
>>
>> What are the benefits of splitting the main library and its documentation
>> into separate collections?
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3amulti-collection%29
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Racket Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6ea9f50e-0d4f-4800-bc17-d31979a614cfn%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CADcuegs%3D-YZKaTSmPxreNekuUyxcyMG6AOSzxwnkCnr_8jBkgg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAHsjV0xQmU3tA21v-bngvpEcxRof3ZSTGc3%3Dfu3i2mLzqk8qLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [racket-users] Rationale for package structure

['Joel Dueck' via Racket Users]

Ah I see! So is there some heuristic for when you should try to play nice 
with Minimal Racket? Is it, ideally, “always”? Or is it mainly if you’re 
likely to be using the package on a server, CI, etc?

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 1:58:33 PM UTC-5 sorawe...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think it's so that `raco pkg install mypkg-lib` won't install 
> `racket-doc` if you use Minimal Racket?
>
> If you don't split `mypkg` to `mypkg-lib` and `mypkg-doc`, but specify 
> `deps` and `build-deps` correctly, `raco pkg install --binary mypkg` won't 
> pull in `racket-doc` either. I don't know when this feature was added 
> though. Perhaps, it could be that the package splitting convention predates 
> the feature, and the convention persists.
>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users <
> racket...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> I’ve always used the single collection format [1] in my packages.
>>
>> However, I see a lot of package authors will use a multi-collection 
>> format and split the library, documentation and maybe tests out into 
>> separate collections.
>>
>> What are the benefits of splitting the main library and its documentation 
>> into separate collections?
>>
>> [1]: 
>> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3amulti-collection%29
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Racket Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to racket-users...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6ea9f50e-0d4f-4800-bc17-d31979a614cfn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/8c79a2bc-ab1a-4183-9f75-f52f37316f62n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [racket-users] Rationale for package structure

[Sorawee Porncharoenwase]

I think it's so that `raco pkg install mypkg-lib` won't install
`racket-doc` if you use Minimal Racket?

If you don't split `mypkg` to `mypkg-lib` and `mypkg-doc`, but specify
`deps` and `build-deps` correctly, `raco pkg install --binary mypkg` won't
pull in `racket-doc` either. I don't know when this feature was added
though. Perhaps, it could be that the package splitting convention predates
the feature, and the convention persists.

On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 10:58 AM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users <
racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I’ve always used the single collection format [1] in my packages.
>
> However, I see a lot of package authors will use a multi-collection format
> and split the library, documentation and maybe tests out into separate
> collections.
>
> What are the benefits of splitting the main library and its documentation
> into separate collections?
>
> [1]:
> https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3amulti-collection%29
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Racket Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6ea9f50e-0d4f-4800-bc17-d31979a614cfn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CADcuegs%3D-YZKaTSmPxreNekuUyxcyMG6AOSzxwnkCnr_8jBkgg%40mail.gmail.com.

[racket-users] Rationale for package structure

['Joel Dueck' via Racket Users]

I’ve always used the single collection format [1] in my packages.

However, I see a lot of package authors will use a multi-collection format 
and split the library, documentation and maybe tests out into separate 
collections.

What are the benefits of splitting the main library and its documentation 
into separate collections?

[1]: 
https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/Package_Concepts.html#%28part._concept~3amulti-collection%29

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/6ea9f50e-0d4f-4800-bc17-d31979a614cfn%40googlegroups.com.