At Thu, 21 May 2020 15:39:30 +0000, Sage Gerard wrote: > I'm not sure what improvements can be made that A) wouldn't repeat the > problems encountered in PLaneT and B) gives users an "easy" way to deal with > breaking changes in collection names beyond what the Package Management FAQ > suggests.
Well, I hope you take my comments in the spirit of "advice that may be wrong". When multiple things change between A and B, saying which changes mattered ends up being a matter of opinion and interpretation. > I remember Sam mentioning `raco link` in Slack, but based on your > emails it sounds like NOTHING can fundamentally change without a > tethered installation or custom distribution (e.g. a collects-like > directory relative to a different executable). Is that correct? I > wasn't sure if you were hinting at that in your first email. You can do many things with just environment variables (e.g., to pick a configuration directory). A tethered environment solves the problem that environment variables are too widely scoped; if your Racket program is meant to start a separate process that runs a different Racket, for example, the environment variables affects the second Racket --- unless the original program goes out of its way to remove them. > If that's the case, then I'd probably double down on my first reply: > It almost seems like giving users an easy way to generate tethered > installations would open up more opportunities than trying to make > the default installation behave a certain way around packages, > collections, and modules. I still agree with this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/20200521095040.19d%40sirmail.smtp.cs.utah.edu.
