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

> 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 view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to