On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Tom Gordon<[email protected]> wrote: > >> have a tentative objection to everything you're discussing. You're >> building a system with package names, versions and dependencies, but the >> R6RS already has all that. Where do they figure in? > > Good point. Doesn't this boil down to mapping libraries to packages, where > each package is a hierarchical tree of libraries? > Is a package more than just a universal identifer or name for the root of a > tree of libraries? Should packages have versions independent of the > versions of the libraries they contain? And can't the dependencies of a > package be derived from the dependencies of its libraries, from their import > statements?
The spec doesn't define how the imports need to be stored at an implementation level. Hierarchical directory structures are a good fit for humans, though. The spec also defines support for versioning of libraries.
