Oh. I thought the proposal was that packages would remain multi collection by default, and you'd add something like (define single-collection "name") in info.rkt to opt for single. And the work for current packagers would be if they wanted to change from multi to single.
But I'm fine either way. I just want to be clear what I need to do to keep compatibility with 5.3.4 for existing packages. If that means adding something to info.rkt to say, "yeah, I'm still multi", I may do that. But I would really enjoy using single for any new ones. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > I think more people need to speak up on this question --- particularly > authors of existing packages, since the current proposal necessitates > an update to each existing package. > > The proposal is to make single-package collections the default: > > * If a directory used as a package has no "info.rkt" file, then it is > treated as a single-collection package. > > The single collection's name is the same as the package name (which > tends to be the directory name, but it depends on how you install > the package). > > * If a directory used as a package has an "info.rkt" file, but > "info.rkt" doesn't explicitly say that the package is > multi-collection, then it's still a single-collection package. > > The "info.rkt" file might supply a name for the single collection, > instead of leaving it to the package name; supplying a name would be > a requirement for ring-0 packages. > > For each existing package, the author would need to add a line to the > package's "info.rkt" to indicate that it is a multi-collection package > (or change the layout to single-collection mode, with the caveat that > the package won't work with v5.3.4). > > Any more votes for/against? > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
