At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Flatt mfl...@cs.utah.edu 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
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 mfl...@cs.utah.edu wrote:
At Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:59:38 -0500, Sam
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Matthias Felleisen
matth...@ccs.neu.edu 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
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
4 matches
Mail list logo
