On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Robby Findler
<ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> Oh, absolutely.
OK, I'll do that later today.
> The two candidates are the trampoline approach and the "just move the
> documentation files over into the user space as if a package had been
> installed".
Oh, *that*'s the other solution? That sounds pretty bad not only
because it complicates file installation which is already very complex,
but also because it's a significant weight. (For example, the current
size I see is about 180M, multiply that for a department with a thousand
users and you get unhappy admins.)
> I guess the latter is better because it means there will be more
> homogeneity in the sets of files and whatnot, such that these kinds of
> bugs will be less likely to be unnoticed by in house folk.
I think you meant to say "former" (ie, the trampoline) -- yes, having a
very different setup for end users is also pretty bad. IMO, it falls
under the complication point above: installation layout is not only
complex in itself, it's also a point that introduces many different
options which are almost all never tested, and worse -- they can easily
lead to very bad bugs.
> That is, I never noticed this problem because my documentation is
> already in the user-specific place because I build from source. The
> other option will make our users operate more like how my drracket
> operates.
(I'm not following that.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
