On Apr 27, Michael Sperber wrote:
>
> Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes:
>
> > * This is in iplt/build/distribution-specs.
>
> The problem is that this documents the specs *as they are*, rather
> than as you'd like to see them. How would it have helped me figure
> out there's a problem?
By the fact that it's added to the `dr' distribution -- that implies
that drscheme depends on it. BTW, the part for packages is pretty
simple -- the main mess is in the overall rules for the system.
(Initially I even thought about putting package specific rules in the
packages info files or some other meta-file local to the package
directory.)
> > * Yes, there is a dependency now, this is bad -- but making it
> > worse is not a good idea.
>
> Then maybe the test-engine needs to split in two parts: One that
> knows about DrScheme (and which can have translations), and one that
> doesn't. It seems Kathy has already catered to that scenario the
> way the modules in collects/test-engine are organized.
* Yes, such splits are good -- but I basically get zero help from
package authors. (I've stopped trying to do that, so I just email
when I see something obvious.)
* The files that are in the `dr' distribution are files that drscheme
depends on, not the other way (otherwise they'd move to the `plt'
distribution).
> > (You can see this by the fact that
> > "test-engine" appears in dr-extras instead of plt-extras)
>
> A comment might help idle readers like me figure out that you
> consider this undesirable.
I tried to explain it several times, I don't think that anyone
remembers. (This also applies to having `mr' and `dr' distros when
they're not really being built.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
