That doesn't sound like the right conclusion to me from this particular evidence. I'm not sure if I'm falling for the "easy semantics" dream here, but "update = remove + install" sounds really nice. (So would "update = remove + remove-all-deps + install" tho. :)
Robby On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu>wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Yes, that's correct. As you mention "update = remove + install", I > > hope this result is predictable. Imagine, for a moment that someone > > used your old markdown package with my unreleased super-secret Racket > > Wiki server. Then, they decided that they wanted your blog engine too. > > You wouldn't expect installing "frog" to update the markdown package. > > Since "raco pkg update <x>" is literally just removing the package and > > adding it again (with a tiny bit of a barrier in case the second > > install fails), it works the same way. > > > Related to 'update = remove + install', when the user who's issue > triggered this conversation ran using `--update-deps`, it didn't work: > > > raco pkg update --update-deps frog > raco pkg update: could not remove package > package not currently installed > current scope: user > package: (markdown 0.5) > currently installed: > base > frog > parsack > rackjure > markdown > find-parent-dir > > I'm not sure how this could happen, but I think it indicates that > 'remove + install' may be too simplistic to work in general. > > Sam > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
