At Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:45:12 -0600, Jay McCarthy wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Asumu Takikawa <as...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I noticed that if you don't specify any dependencies for a package, then > > `raco` will warn you about that. However, the exit code is 0 and it's > > not an "error". > > > > Comparatively, if you supply a dependencies field of `empty`, then you > > will get a bunch of errors about undeclared dependencies and the exit > > code is 1. > > > > Is there a reason why these two cases are treated differently? > > In the first case, you are forgetting to do it and we warn to tell you > what you should put. In the second case, you put them in but are wrong > and should be CAUGHT and PUNISHED. I think that's the logic behind it.
:) My intent was to have a path from the v5.3.x world, where the dependency on the main distribution was implicit and most packages declared no dependencies, and the v5.90.x world, where the main distribution is a bunch of packages and dependencies should be declared. Initially, that difference meant that you couldn't make a package that declared dependences and worked for both v5.3.x and v5.90.x. Now that the catalog at "pkg.racket-lang.org" has a mapping for each package in the v5.90.x main distribution and points empty versions of those packages for v5.3.x, then it could make sense to change the no-declared-dependencies warning to an error. _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
