Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
That seems like a fair summary and since my preference is clearly the minority one, I'm happy to stick with 'make as-is'. The new mode for pulling updates will help, as well. Sam On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, 7:52 AM Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt > wrote: > > > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > > Does another system have a Racket-like in-place option (that works > > > better)? > > > > I haven't used it, but GHC has an in-place build option where you can > > install packages; see [1]. > > I don't have a lot of experience with GHC, but I have talked to some > GHC and Cabal developers about how they work with the package system. > Those discussions did not lead me to believe that they have an > especially smooth system for working with packages and updates in-place > --- and, in particular, that it's not the way they normally work. I'd > be happy to hear more from someone who routinely works that way with > GHC, though. > > > I think the closer analogy is to what other software does when you run > > both `make` and `make install` analagous to Racket's unix-style > > installation, since that's the recommended way of building (eg > > Python), just as in-place is the recommended way of building Racket > > from source. I don't think any of those systems update packages when > > running `make install`. > > I'm not sure what you're getting at here. We seem to agree that the > usual `make` plus `make install` is like Racket's `make unix-style`, > neither of which updates packages (other than the ones the makefile > knows about). > > > > > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:40:36 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > >> Speaking as the user I am, I really like it that make updates > > >> my extra-pkgs. > > > > > > Package scope provides one a way to get these different behaviors. The > > > current `make` updates only packages that are in installation scope, > > > and it also sets installation scope to be the default, so that's why > > > `make` tends to update everything that is installed. Maybe Sam should > > > install additional packages in user scope, and then `make` won't try to > > > update them. > > > > I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are > > packages in "main-distribution" > > Ah, no. I've helped Matthias when problems break his installation, I've > noticed that he installs packages not in "main-distribution" (e.g., > "marketplace"), and I believe he really does want those updated. > > I had that context in mind but didn't think to spell it out as I should > have. > > > > As an aside, the reason I don't install in user scope is that I switch > > between Racket implementations regularly, which would lead to > > out-of-date zo errors for all my user packages (instead, I get > > multiple copies of the packages). > > You can give each installation a different name (using `raco pkg config > --set name ...`) to avoid the collision. That would be an extra step in > setting up each new installation, though. > > > I don't have a strong opinion on whether `make` should update packages > outside of "main-distribution", but the feedback I'm getting is > > * Sam doesn't think they should be updated --- but he also doesn't >want packages in "main-distribution" updated, so he's going to use >`make as-is`. > > * Everyone else who has spoken up seems to prefer an updating `make`, >so far. > > -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAK%3DHD%2BbRiPnX%3DuWH2x6UjQTzkEZn5nR-UNb-9Bka8wvZHBx-GA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Does another system have a Racket-like in-place option (that works > > better)? > > I haven't used it, but GHC has an in-place build option where you can > install packages; see [1]. I don't have a lot of experience with GHC, but I have talked to some GHC and Cabal developers about how they work with the package system. Those discussions did not lead me to believe that they have an especially smooth system for working with packages and updates in-place --- and, in particular, that it's not the way they normally work. I'd be happy to hear more from someone who routinely works that way with GHC, though. > I think the closer analogy is to what other software does when you run > both `make` and `make install` analagous to Racket's unix-style > installation, since that's the recommended way of building (eg > Python), just as in-place is the recommended way of building Racket > from source. I don't think any of those systems update packages when > running `make install`. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. We seem to agree that the usual `make` plus `make install` is like Racket's `make unix-style`, neither of which updates packages (other than the ones the makefile knows about). > > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:40:36 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> Speaking as the user I am, I really like it that make updates > >> my extra-pkgs. > > > > Package scope provides one a way to get these different behaviors. The > > current `make` updates only packages that are in installation scope, > > and it also sets installation scope to be the default, so that's why > > `make` tends to update everything that is installed. Maybe Sam should > > install additional packages in user scope, and then `make` won't try to > > update them. > > I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are > packages in "main-distribution" Ah, no. I've helped Matthias when problems break his installation, I've noticed that he installs packages not in "main-distribution" (e.g., "marketplace"), and I believe he really does want those updated. I had that context in mind but didn't think to spell it out as I should have. > As an aside, the reason I don't install in user scope is that I switch > between Racket implementations regularly, which would lead to > out-of-date zo errors for all my user packages (instead, I get > multiple copies of the packages). You can give each installation a different name (using `raco pkg config --set name ...`) to avoid the collision. That would be an extra step in setting up each new installation, though. I don't have a strong opinion on whether `make` should update packages outside of "main-distribution", but the feedback I'm getting is * Sam doesn't think they should be updated --- but he also doesn't want packages in "main-distribution" updated, so he's going to use `make as-is`. * Everyone else who has spoken up seems to prefer an updating `make`, so far. -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/20150218125203.667906501B8%40mail-svr1.cs.utah.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are >> packages in "main-distribution", > > > Personally, I have used the 'same' one-line command > going back to csv through svn and now git (_update). > > When I write "Speaking as the user I am .." I am > thinking of people like me. Then again, you're > probably saying that I am the bottom element of > the lattice of make/update knowledge, so never mind > what I write. No, what I mean is that many (all?) of the packages you're thinking of are ones, like "2htdp", that are part of "main-distribution", and thus you're in a different position than someone who develops packages that are not part of the distribution. I certainly don't think you're the bottom element in that lattice -- after all, you've written a shell script to automate your work. Sam -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAK%3DHD%2BYwVcHtYc%2BKCOMU4bCsLCyzaFwyB-9E8uPzBV8%2BsJvqdg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are > packages in "main-distribution", Personally, I have used the 'same' one-line command going back to csv through svn and now git (_update). When I write "Speaking as the user I am .." I am thinking of people like me. Then again, you're probably saying that I am the bottom element of the lattice of make/update knowledge, so never mind what I write. -- Matthias -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/8DB5B81F-1701-411E-8E2D-0546904BA960%40ccs.neu.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only >> "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt >> people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their >> software somewhere else on their machine -- I certainly would be very >> unpleasantly surprised if that happened to me when rebuilding some >> other language I had installed. > > I have trouble seeing the comparison to other software. I don't know of > anything else with an in-place build option, where you can install or > link additional packages in place, and you can also pull core updates, > and somehow it all works. The examples I have seen are all more like > `make unix-style`, where there's a clear separation of the source and > the installed form. In that case, the issues we're looking at here > don't come up. > > Does another system have a Racket-like in-place option (that works > better)? I haven't used it, but GHC has an in-place build option where you can install packages; see [1]. From their wiki, it looks like `git pull && make` will update both the compiler and the "boot libraries" (the ones used by the compiler), plus any that you've listed as "extra" explicitly [2], but not any other packages. However, it doesn't seem like they expect people to use this as the "standard" way to build the compiler the way we do for Racket. [1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Debugging/InstallingPackagesInplace [2] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Libraries I think the closer analogy is to what other software does when you run both `make` and `make install` analagous to Racket's unix-style installation, since that's the recommended way of building (eg Python), just as in-place is the recommended way of building Racket from source. I don't think any of those systems update packages when running `make install`. > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:40:36 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> Speaking as the user I am, I really like it that make updates >> my extra-pkgs. > > Package scope provides one a way to get these different behaviors. The > current `make` updates only packages that are in installation scope, > and it also sets installation scope to be the default, so that's why > `make` tends to update everything that is installed. Maybe Sam should > install additional packages in user scope, and then `make` won't try to > update them. I expect that the packages that update for Matthias on `make` are packages in "main-distribution", and thus just switching to `raco pkg update --update-deps main-distribution` would still make him happy (and be more like the old `git pull && make`). As an aside, the reason I don't install in user scope is that I switch between Racket implementations regularly, which would lead to out-of-date zo errors for all my user packages (instead, I get multiple copies of the packages). > Another possibility is that the packages installed by `make` should go > into a scope that's even deeper than installation scope. That's how the > pre-split organization worked, and I sometimes think that we should go > back to that. But it's more complex, and it would work less well for > Matthias and others who benefit from the current `make` behavior. Whether that changes Matthias' work flow depends on what packages he's relying on `make` updating, right? Sam -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAK%3DHD%2BaxxpZu8w_WwtLbWzAjvJbe-HsqFqb-eg0Wqd3tidDepg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:12:54 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only > "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt > people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their > software somewhere else on their machine -- I certainly would be very > unpleasantly surprised if that happened to me when rebuilding some > other language I had installed. I have trouble seeing the comparison to other software. I don't know of anything else with an in-place build option, where you can install or link additional packages in place, and you can also pull core updates, and somehow it all works. The examples I have seen are all more like `make unix-style`, where there's a clear separation of the source and the installed form. In that case, the issues we're looking at here don't come up. Does another system have a Racket-like in-place option (that works better)? At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:40:36 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > Speaking as the user I am, I really like it that make updates > my extra-pkgs. Package scope provides one a way to get these different behaviors. The current `make` updates only packages that are in installation scope, and it also sets installation scope to be the default, so that's why `make` tends to update everything that is installed. Maybe Sam should install additional packages in user scope, and then `make` won't try to update them. Another possibility is that the packages installed by `make` should go into a scope that's even deeper than installation scope. That's how the pre-split organization worked, and I sometimes think that we should go back to that. But it's more complex, and it would work less well for Matthias and others who benefit from the current `make` behavior. Overall, my sense is that the current defaults work right for people with the least expertise, but we can refine our tools to provide options to people with more expertise. -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/20150217234131.86F396501B8%40mail-svr1.cs.utah.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
On Feb 17, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only > "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt > people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their > software somewhere else on their machine -- I certainly would be very > unpleasantly surprised if that happened to me when rebuilding some > other language I had installed. Speaking as the user I am, I really like it that make updates my extra-pkgs. -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/357EA559-01FF-40AD-B670-D3765E0C72C1%40ccs.neu.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > Continuing in reverse order: > > - My sense is that the switch to `make` so that it updates packages, > which was a result of > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2015-January/065345.html > > has been a good change for most people most of the time. > > The `as-is` target is currently available for building without updating > packages. I think it would make sense to introduce `make > as-is-the-default` to effectively change the default `make` target to > be `make as-is`. (And there would be `make with-update` to get the > current behavior of `make` after `make as-is-the-default`, plus `make > with-update-the-default` for completeness.) I continue to think that updating pkgs automatically is the wrong default, but regardless of where we end up on the default I don't know if adding yet more make targets is a good idea. I can switch to using `make as-is`. Regardless of that, though, I think we should switch to updating only "main-distribution" (and perhaps "main-distribution-tests"). I doubt people expect `make` in the Racket source tree to update their software somewhere else on their machine -- I certainly would be very unpleasantly surprised if that happened to me when rebuilding some other language I had installed. > - It makes sense to me to add a `--pull` option to `raco pkg update` > for specifying the behavior of the `git pull` step for linked clones. I > imagine that the default would be `--pull ff-only` for the current > behavior, while `--pull try` would ignore fast-forward failures. I > think I'd also like `--pull rebase`. > > I'm skeptical that making `--pull try` the default would be a good > idea. People have trouble seeing warnings. I think there's an important difference between ignoring failures and not trying to merge in situations where it doesn't make sense. For example, if some other branch is checked out, I don't think skipping updating is "ignoring failure". I guess I would label my preference `--pull conservative` and that even if you miss the warning, it wouldn't be so bad -- you almost certainly didn't want to change the package in that case. Relatedly, perhaps `raco setup` and `raco pkg update` have too much output currently, making it harder to see warnings? Sam > > Would those changes work? > > > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:38:43 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> I think there are two seperable issues here: >> >> 1. Can we make `raco pkg update -a` better/more robust in this case? >> >> 2. Should `make` run `raco pkg update -a`? >> >> In reverse order: >> >> - I think `make`, by default, shouldn't update anything, and that we >> should have a different Makefile target which updates things when >> people want that explicitly. The current behavior is especially >> problematic because it updates things that aren't in >> "main-distribution", meaning that it's making potentially arbitrary >> breaking changes to software on your computer (not just to core >> Racket). >> >> This could be more inconvenient for someone working widely on core >> packages, but if they wanted the current behavior it would be just >> `make update` (or some other name) instead of `make`. As someone who >> does work on a lot of core packages, I'd prefer greater explicitness. >> >> - I think `raco pkg update p` where `p` is a cloned package should >> only do anything if (a) the currently-checked-out branch is the one in >> the pkg source and (b) the `git merge --ff-only` command would >> succeed. Otherwise, I think it should just print a message and leave >> the repository as it is. I think that's what I wanted all the times >> that this operation has failed in my experience. >> >> Sam >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Robby Findler >> wrote: >> > Sam and I have run into a situation where `make` fails because we've >> > set up clone pkgs and made local modifications in a way that makes the >> > git commands fail [*]. >> > >> > My guess is that the right thing to do is for me to know about these >> > pkgs and do something special when running make. I'm thinking that I >> > could let make finish the initial steps until it gets to the step >> > where it updates the pkgs and then do the update step myself and then >> > run `make as-is`. But the problem with this is that I don't see what >> > command I can run that will update all of the pkgs except the >> > problematic ones. Like I could imagine a `raco pkg update >> > --all-except-clones` or something, but that feels a bit strange as >> > there could be other development modes that would also run into >> > similar problems. Maybe `raco pkg update >> > --all-things-from-this-catalog >> > ` or something >> > along those lines is the way to go? In general, it seems right for me >> > to run some commands whose complications are roughly proportional to >> > the number of pkgs that I have installed as clones (and where I'm >> > actively developing them) but not to run some commands that requir
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
That would work great for me. And I think that I recall that "make base" is the target that I would use to build enough to be able to run `raco pkg update --all --auto --pull try` and then finish off with `raco setup`, right? Robby On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > Continuing in reverse order: > > - My sense is that the switch to `make` so that it updates packages, > which was a result of > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2015-January/065345.html > > has been a good change for most people most of the time. > > The `as-is` target is currently available for building without updating > packages. I think it would make sense to introduce `make > as-is-the-default` to effectively change the default `make` target to > be `make as-is`. (And there would be `make with-update` to get the > current behavior of `make` after `make as-is-the-default`, plus `make > with-update-the-default` for completeness.) > > > - It makes sense to me to add a `--pull` option to `raco pkg update` > for specifying the behavior of the `git pull` step for linked clones. I > imagine that the default would be `--pull ff-only` for the current > behavior, while `--pull try` would ignore fast-forward failures. I > think I'd also like `--pull rebase`. > > I'm skeptical that making `--pull try` the default would be a good > idea. People have trouble seeing warnings. > > > Would those changes work? > > > At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:38:43 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> I think there are two seperable issues here: >> >> 1. Can we make `raco pkg update -a` better/more robust in this case? >> >> 2. Should `make` run `raco pkg update -a`? >> >> In reverse order: >> >> - I think `make`, by default, shouldn't update anything, and that we >> should have a different Makefile target which updates things when >> people want that explicitly. The current behavior is especially >> problematic because it updates things that aren't in >> "main-distribution", meaning that it's making potentially arbitrary >> breaking changes to software on your computer (not just to core >> Racket). >> >> This could be more inconvenient for someone working widely on core >> packages, but if they wanted the current behavior it would be just >> `make update` (or some other name) instead of `make`. As someone who >> does work on a lot of core packages, I'd prefer greater explicitness. >> >> - I think `raco pkg update p` where `p` is a cloned package should >> only do anything if (a) the currently-checked-out branch is the one in >> the pkg source and (b) the `git merge --ff-only` command would >> succeed. Otherwise, I think it should just print a message and leave >> the repository as it is. I think that's what I wanted all the times >> that this operation has failed in my experience. >> >> Sam >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Robby Findler >> wrote: >> > Sam and I have run into a situation where `make` fails because we've >> > set up clone pkgs and made local modifications in a way that makes the >> > git commands fail [*]. >> > >> > My guess is that the right thing to do is for me to know about these >> > pkgs and do something special when running make. I'm thinking that I >> > could let make finish the initial steps until it gets to the step >> > where it updates the pkgs and then do the update step myself and then >> > run `make as-is`. But the problem with this is that I don't see what >> > command I can run that will update all of the pkgs except the >> > problematic ones. Like I could imagine a `raco pkg update >> > --all-except-clones` or something, but that feels a bit strange as >> > there could be other development modes that would also run into >> > similar problems. Maybe `raco pkg update >> > --all-things-from-this-catalog >> > ` or something >> > along those lines is the way to go? In general, it seems right for me >> > to run some commands whose complications are roughly proportional to >> > the number of pkgs that I have installed as clones (and where I'm >> > actively developing them) but not to run some commands that require me >> > to do something special for each pkg that is installed. >> > >> > Any ideas? Or am I just missing the right command? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Robby >> > >> > [*] In my case, in case this suggests a better/different approach to a >> > resolution: the `raco pkg update` step eventually gets to this git >> > command: >> > >> > git merge --ff-only >> > >> > where the is the checksum from the pkg server, I believe. In my >> > case, this is a different branch than is currently checked in my >> > clone'd pkg and so the git merge command fails (and that command >> > failing seems like the right behavior for the setup I'd like to be >> > able to use). >> > >> > -- >> > 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.c
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
Continuing in reverse order: - My sense is that the switch to `make` so that it updates packages, which was a result of http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2015-January/065345.html has been a good change for most people most of the time. The `as-is` target is currently available for building without updating packages. I think it would make sense to introduce `make as-is-the-default` to effectively change the default `make` target to be `make as-is`. (And there would be `make with-update` to get the current behavior of `make` after `make as-is-the-default`, plus `make with-update-the-default` for completeness.) - It makes sense to me to add a `--pull` option to `raco pkg update` for specifying the behavior of the `git pull` step for linked clones. I imagine that the default would be `--pull ff-only` for the current behavior, while `--pull try` would ignore fast-forward failures. I think I'd also like `--pull rebase`. I'm skeptical that making `--pull try` the default would be a good idea. People have trouble seeing warnings. Would those changes work? At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:38:43 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > I think there are two seperable issues here: > > 1. Can we make `raco pkg update -a` better/more robust in this case? > > 2. Should `make` run `raco pkg update -a`? > > In reverse order: > > - I think `make`, by default, shouldn't update anything, and that we > should have a different Makefile target which updates things when > people want that explicitly. The current behavior is especially > problematic because it updates things that aren't in > "main-distribution", meaning that it's making potentially arbitrary > breaking changes to software on your computer (not just to core > Racket). > > This could be more inconvenient for someone working widely on core > packages, but if they wanted the current behavior it would be just > `make update` (or some other name) instead of `make`. As someone who > does work on a lot of core packages, I'd prefer greater explicitness. > > - I think `raco pkg update p` where `p` is a cloned package should > only do anything if (a) the currently-checked-out branch is the one in > the pkg source and (b) the `git merge --ff-only` command would > succeed. Otherwise, I think it should just print a message and leave > the repository as it is. I think that's what I wanted all the times > that this operation has failed in my experience. > > Sam > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Robby Findler > wrote: > > Sam and I have run into a situation where `make` fails because we've > > set up clone pkgs and made local modifications in a way that makes the > > git commands fail [*]. > > > > My guess is that the right thing to do is for me to know about these > > pkgs and do something special when running make. I'm thinking that I > > could let make finish the initial steps until it gets to the step > > where it updates the pkgs and then do the update step myself and then > > run `make as-is`. But the problem with this is that I don't see what > > command I can run that will update all of the pkgs except the > > problematic ones. Like I could imagine a `raco pkg update > > --all-except-clones` or something, but that feels a bit strange as > > there could be other development modes that would also run into > > similar problems. Maybe `raco pkg update > > --all-things-from-this-catalog > > ` or something > > along those lines is the way to go? In general, it seems right for me > > to run some commands whose complications are roughly proportional to > > the number of pkgs that I have installed as clones (and where I'm > > actively developing them) but not to run some commands that require me > > to do something special for each pkg that is installed. > > > > Any ideas? Or am I just missing the right command? > > > > Thanks, > > Robby > > > > [*] In my case, in case this suggests a better/different approach to a > > resolution: the `raco pkg update` step eventually gets to this git > > command: > > > > git merge --ff-only > > > > where the is the checksum from the pkg server, I believe. In my > > case, this is a different branch than is currently checked in my > > clone'd pkg and so the git merge command fails (and that command > > failing seems like the right behavior for the setup I'd like to be > > able to use). > > > > -- > > 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAL3TdONOjL3_y8U_A1ZUoz_1Z%3DE3HjV > V8by9e%2B2dS-W2mc51pg%40mail.gmail.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Dev
Re: [racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
I think there are two seperable issues here: 1. Can we make `raco pkg update -a` better/more robust in this case? 2. Should `make` run `raco pkg update -a`? In reverse order: - I think `make`, by default, shouldn't update anything, and that we should have a different Makefile target which updates things when people want that explicitly. The current behavior is especially problematic because it updates things that aren't in "main-distribution", meaning that it's making potentially arbitrary breaking changes to software on your computer (not just to core Racket). This could be more inconvenient for someone working widely on core packages, but if they wanted the current behavior it would be just `make update` (or some other name) instead of `make`. As someone who does work on a lot of core packages, I'd prefer greater explicitness. - I think `raco pkg update p` where `p` is a cloned package should only do anything if (a) the currently-checked-out branch is the one in the pkg source and (b) the `git merge --ff-only` command would succeed. Otherwise, I think it should just print a message and leave the repository as it is. I think that's what I wanted all the times that this operation has failed in my experience. Sam On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Robby Findler wrote: > Sam and I have run into a situation where `make` fails because we've > set up clone pkgs and made local modifications in a way that makes the > git commands fail [*]. > > My guess is that the right thing to do is for me to know about these > pkgs and do something special when running make. I'm thinking that I > could let make finish the initial steps until it gets to the step > where it updates the pkgs and then do the update step myself and then > run `make as-is`. But the problem with this is that I don't see what > command I can run that will update all of the pkgs except the > problematic ones. Like I could imagine a `raco pkg update > --all-except-clones` or something, but that feels a bit strange as > there could be other development modes that would also run into > similar problems. Maybe `raco pkg update > --all-things-from-this-catalog > ` or something > along those lines is the way to go? In general, it seems right for me > to run some commands whose complications are roughly proportional to > the number of pkgs that I have installed as clones (and where I'm > actively developing them) but not to run some commands that require me > to do something special for each pkg that is installed. > > Any ideas? Or am I just missing the right command? > > Thanks, > Robby > > [*] In my case, in case this suggests a better/different approach to a > resolution: the `raco pkg update` step eventually gets to this git > command: > > git merge --ff-only > > where the is the checksum from the pkg server, I believe. In my > case, this is a different branch than is currently checked in my > clone'd pkg and so the git merge command fails (and that command > failing seems like the right behavior for the setup I'd like to be > able to use). > > -- > 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAL3TdONOjL3_y8U_A1ZUoz_1Z%3DE3HjVV8by9e%2B2dS-W2mc51pg%40mail.gmail.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAK%3DHD%2BbYrWHAxWssmvXFA%2BA0tco2RDAXwORQj_iwOq%3DpYXzZOA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[racket-dev] make & --clone installed pkgs
Sam and I have run into a situation where `make` fails because we've set up clone pkgs and made local modifications in a way that makes the git commands fail [*]. My guess is that the right thing to do is for me to know about these pkgs and do something special when running make. I'm thinking that I could let make finish the initial steps until it gets to the step where it updates the pkgs and then do the update step myself and then run `make as-is`. But the problem with this is that I don't see what command I can run that will update all of the pkgs except the problematic ones. Like I could imagine a `raco pkg update --all-except-clones` or something, but that feels a bit strange as there could be other development modes that would also run into similar problems. Maybe `raco pkg update --all-things-from-this-catalog ` or something along those lines is the way to go? In general, it seems right for me to run some commands whose complications are roughly proportional to the number of pkgs that I have installed as clones (and where I'm actively developing them) but not to run some commands that require me to do something special for each pkg that is installed. Any ideas? Or am I just missing the right command? Thanks, Robby [*] In my case, in case this suggests a better/different approach to a resolution: the `raco pkg update` step eventually gets to this git command: git merge --ff-only where the is the checksum from the pkg server, I believe. In my case, this is a different branch than is currently checked in my clone'd pkg and so the git merge command fails (and that command failing seems like the right behavior for the setup I'd like to be able to use). -- 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 racket-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to racket-...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAL3TdONOjL3_y8U_A1ZUoz_1Z%3DE3HjVV8by9e%2B2dS-W2mc51pg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
