[racket-dev] Too many license files
Hi, As I am testing upcoming 6.0 release build process, one thing that strikes me is the number of LICENCE.txt files, 166 of them. add the 3 for the copying COPYING-libscheme.txt, COPYING_LESSER.txt, COPYING.txt makes 169 in total. Is is really necessary to have the 166 copies of the same file ? Mind you it is not the size but identical file being installed 166 times is the issue here Please DO NOT put me in To or CC, just reply to the mailinglist/newsgroup -- Life is endless possibilities _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #28213: master branch updated
On Feb 20, 2014 10:33 PM, Neil Toronto neil.toro...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/20/2014 02:52 PM, as...@racket-lang.org wrote: asumu has updated `master' from 1f27fb7848 to 1c6c0855f7. http://git.racket-lang.org/plt/1f27fb7848..1c6c0855f7 =[ 103 Commits ] Directory summary: 3.8% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-doc/typed-racket/scribblings/reference/ 10.7% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/base-env/ 6.1% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/private/ 4.0% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/rep/ 34.5% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/typecheck/ 9.6% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-lib/typed-racket/types/ 4.0% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-more/typed/mred/ 23.6% pkgs/typed-racket-pkgs/typed-racket-test/tests/typed-racket/unit-tests/ 3.4% pkgs/ ~~ [... HOLY COW ...] How close is this to being able to support, say, the plot library converted to TR? The OO stuff in it is a few custom classes without anything complicated, a couple of snip% descendants, and drawing onto device contexts. Also, is there a paper floating around somewhere that details the interesting problems that have been solved to make this work? Since Asumu didn't mention it, the first paper about this is here: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/racket/pubs/oopsla12-tsdthf.pdf Sam _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Too many license files
At Fri, 21 Feb 2014 12:17:26 +0100, Togan Muftuoglu wrote: As I am testing upcoming 6.0 release build process, one thing that strikes me is the number of LICENCE.txt files, 166 of them. add the 3 for the copying COPYING-libscheme.txt, COPYING_LESSER.txt, COPYING.txt makes 169 in total. Is is really necessary to have the 166 copies of the same file ? Mind you it is not the size but identical file being installed 166 times is the issue here Yes, the duplicate files bother me, too. I think removing the duplicates will require yet another little twist in the package system (since the files originate from individual packages), so we've left them for now. _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] [plt] Push #28213: master branch updated
On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt sa...@cs.indiana.edu wrote: Since Asumu didn't mention it, the first paper about this is here: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/racket/pubs/oopsla12-tsdthf.pdf Yeah, but don't read this. We will share a draft paper that looks more practical if you want to try it out. _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Too many license files
For at least third-party packages (though you might want something trickier for core Racket)... I'm not a lawyer, but I figured that, for most packages I author, I probably don't *need* to include the full text of a well-known license (e.g., LGPLv3). Instead, I give the copyright notice, state that the license using the recognized full name of the license (and a URL), and then some disclaimers. I include this legal info in metadata in info.rkt, and McFly makes it appear automatically in the documentation (with, e.g., LGPLv3 at the top of the document, and the free-form legal blurb at the end of the document). Example at: http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket-roomba/ I've started to also add a one-line copyright notice at the top of each source file in the package, something like ;; Copyright Neil Van Dyke. See file info.rkt. (I might have to move to a legal notice comment block at the top of each file, but I'd really rather not. Notice blocks don't seem to be a barrier to abuse anyway.) Neil V. _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Too many license files
That sounds much more sensible than including COPYING.txt and COPYING_LESSER.txt everywhere. Unless someone tells me that it's a bad idea, I'll switch packages to refer to LGPL by reference. At Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:45:50 -0500, Neil Van Dyke wrote: For at least third-party packages (though you might want something trickier for core Racket)... I'm not a lawyer, but I figured that, for most packages I author, I probably don't *need* to include the full text of a well-known license (e.g., LGPLv3). Instead, I give the copyright notice, state that the license using the recognized full name of the license (and a URL), and then some disclaimers. I include this legal info in metadata in info.rkt, and McFly makes it appear automatically in the documentation (with, e.g., LGPLv3 at the top of the document, and the free-form legal blurb at the end of the document). Example at: http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket-roomba/ I've started to also add a one-line copyright notice at the top of each source file in the package, something like ;; Copyright Neil Van Dyke. See file info.rkt. (I might have to move to a legal notice comment block at the top of each file, but I'd really rather not. Notice blocks don't seem to be a barrier to abuse anyway.) Neil V. _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
Re: [racket-dev] Racket head fails to compile
On 20/02/14 14:19, Matthew Flatt wrote: At Sun, 09 Feb 2014 08:35:03 +, Paulo J. Matos wrote: On 09/02/14 00:03, Matthew Flatt wrote: There should be many more flags passed to `gcc`, including some -I flags and some -D flags. Is something in your environment overriding the CFLAGS definition in the makefile? Normally, a definition in the makefile would take precedence over an environment variable, but maybe something else is taking precedence over the definition? Doh, right. I assumed for no good reason racket would behave the same way my usual project does and use env CFLAGS as the optimization flags used for compilation. Any other env variable the racket build system uses for me to add additional compilation flags? (for example to build with `-O2 -ftree-vectorize` or `-O0 -g3`) After some thought shouldn't -D... and -I... flags be controlled by CPPFLAGS and not CFLAGS such that overriding CFLAGS would still leave CPPFLAGS intact? I've changed the makefiles so that setting CFLAGS (or CPPFLAGS) will hopefully work the way you expect. Thanks for the fix. I will give it a try. -- PMatos _ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev