Yesterday, Neil Toronto wrote: > On 10/05/2011 03:25 PM, John Clements wrote: > > > > On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Neil Toronto wrote: > > > >> I've just pushed the new 'plot' library. > >> > >> Eli and I both forgot that the new 'plot' still needs the old > >> libfit, and removed it along with libplplot. I just added libfit > >> back (the sources are in "src/fit" now instead of "src/plot/fit") > >> along with the proper configure, Makefile.in, and get-libs.rkt > >> changes. > > > > Tangential question: it looks like your distribution philosophy > > here is to insist that users have a C compiler installed. Is this > > correct? So people without a compiler can't use the package? (I > > realize that if it's true of your package, it's almost certainly > > true of the earlier one, as well; I'm just curious, because my > > sound library has the same issue.) > > That would be true if 'plot' were a PLaneT package that includes > libfit. But libfit.so is compiled at the same time as the rest of > Racket and distributed with the other binaries.
For distribution purposes, what Matthew did (which I think makes sense) is to include binaries for platforms where a compiler is unlikely to be present. (=> windows and osx.) > (Eli wants to get rid of it. So do I. You might have seen the recent > commit I pushed that comments out check-= 'fit' tests that randomly > fail. Out of about 50 executions they failed once for me, but DrDr > seems more unlucky. *sigh*) Yes, I strongly prefer that it (libfit) gets removed. It was a mistake to include it with plot, since it is independent of the actual thing that plot is supposed to do. -- ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev