At Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:59:28 +0200, tog...@opensuse.org wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:00:14 -0600, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> > said: > > Matthew> Longer term, I think that OS-level packages/ports should probably > Matthew> reflect a minimal Racket installation, and then further Racket > Matthew> packages would be installed via the Racket package system. > > Well, I would argue the other way around, as the whole package system would > have been prepared for the distribution in mind, for example I build the > package with shared-libraries, and avoding any static library, in addition to > not to use bundled software ie. libffi. > > This makes my life as the maintainer of the package easier as any possible > bug/security fix would be easier.
I agree that all the things you list should be part of any OS-specific packaging of Racket. I think all of those details are part of the core build, so they would be consistent with a "Minimal Racket" package. > Having said that the idea sounds more like the Emacs elpa system, and > the user has the option to either download the distro provided > packages or elpa versions. So in a effect racket goes the similar > way. Yes, that sounds right. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
