I know it runs it. I don't know why Jay writes "The package system says
something is installed when the files are in place and the link is made.
>From some perspective, that's its job.". I can't tell if there's some
technical piece I'm missing or not (on the surface, these words sound
almost lazy b
It does run 'raco setup', it just doesn't have much to do in response to a
failure, at least right now.
Carl Eastlund
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> Also, Jay: can you explain more why 'raco setup' isn't something that we
> should think about as running "inside" the pk
Also, Jay: can you explain more why 'raco setup' isn't something that we
should think about as running "inside" the pkg manager? (I'm not saying
that automatically rolling back packages is the right thing to do or
anything like that, but I would like to understand the model you have
better.)
Robby
WRT to the stacktrace below, I guess that if the info.rkt file had been in
a suggestively named directory, e.g.,
/var/tmp/pkg13711534991371153499937/future-visualizer/info.rkt
(assuming that the package's name was future-visualizer) that might have
been a useful clue.
Robby
On Thu, Jun 13, 20
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> As part of my experiment in creating a different split of the
> repository into packages, I spent some time working with the new setup
> for building Racket, and cut myself on many of it's rough edges. Some
> of these are about the pac
Did you try to organize the repository along the distribution specs with
all documentation brought in at the very top?
I can imagine that anyone who downloads textual Racket wants to run it
on a machine that is not where he develops the code. Indeed, the dev
machine will have a full-fledged Ra
As part of my experiment in creating a different split of the
repository into packages, I spent some time working with the new setup
for building Racket, and cut myself on many of it's rough edges. Some
of these are about the package system in general, and some are about
the new repository and bui
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> * The details of the repository organization (including where to split
>repositories) should be different.
>
>As described in next section of this message, the experimental
>repository represents a revised proposal, but there's
8 matches
Mail list logo
