At Wed, 29 May 2013 11:11:18 -0600, Neil Toronto wrote: > On 05/28/2013 03:44 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > >> > >> I don't know whether the "-lib"/"-docs" split is worthwhile, but it's > >> part of erring on the side of breaking things apart. Maybe it makes > >> more sense to keep things together and rely on binary packaging to > >> reduce dependencies. > > Would using binary packaging for that be more complicated?
Relying on binary packaging is simpler for an author, since it means not splitting into "-lib" and "-docs" directories. The drawback of binary packaging is for users: someone who installs the package does not get source. > >> So, how does this split correspond to what you expected? (My guess is > >> that this far too fine-grained for some of us, while others will want > >> exactly this kind of flexibility.) > > I expect `plot' to depend on `math' in the near-ish future. Right now, > `math' already depends on `plot' to build its docs. IOW, I expect the > sources to be interdependent, but as binaries, `plot' will depend on > `math' but `math' won't depend on `plot'. Can the package system handle > that[...]? Yes. Package dependencies can be cyclic (unlike module dependencies), and packages can have cyclic build dependencies without cyclic run dependencies. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
