At Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:27:44 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > > Practically every package will need a dependency on "base", which is a > > package that represents the libraries in the core; it's the > > package-level analogue of having to start every module with `#lang > > racket'. The idea is that the content implied by "base" will stabilize > > after we finish pruning back the core. > > I worry that this is another step that makes it harder to develop > packages. Once we move to single-collection packages by default, then > a github repository with a single `main.rkt` file is, I believe, a > package that works with no warnings or errors (it won't be eligible > for the inner rings of that package management system, though). Could > we have a default dependency that is implied if there is *no* > declaration of dependency information?
I don't think a default dependency is a good idea, but I think it makes sense for `raco setup' to note packages that didn't attempt to declare dependencies separately and less prominently than packages that have incomplete dependency declarations. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
