At Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:31:26 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > > In this particular case, if `raco setup` hadn't reported failure, the > > builds might have hobbled along; I'm not sure. The snapshot build > > generally relies on dependencies being accurate, and I don't think it's > > worth thinking hard about which inaccuracies might be survivable for a > > distribution build. > > Can you say more about how the dependency info is used in the snapshot > build process? In this case, I would think that the minimal build > doesn't include either package involved in this, and the regular build > includes both. Would that mean that the dependency error wouldn't > break things?
I think you're correct, but.. > Or are there other uses of the dependency info in the > snapshot process? ... I wouldn't bet against that. I think the snapshot system is solid, but my experience over many small changes to the package system is that any invariant is used in more places than I remember; when we change or remove some assumption, then I end up fixing more places than I expect. It might be, for example, that installers would get created successfully, but installation would somehow trip over the assumption that `raco setup` won't report any errors in an initial install. Or maybe the install works, but as soon as you try to install a package, it runs into the same problem. I don't see either of those things happening in this case, but those are examples of where I may have overlooked something. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
