On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > At Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:55:01 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> I have mostly the opposite impression of `raco link`. I like the >> default behavior, but that may be a result of my use of a set of >> scripts [1] for managing Racket installations that makes basically >> everything into installation-specific packages. > > It sounds like you're advocating something that you haven't tried, and > you wanted installation-specific links, anyway.
I think what's going on here is that we both work in the following style: - a single primary installation from git, upgraded across versions, with frequent version changes, which we want to keep the same set of packages on upgrade - several separate installs from nightly builds or releases, used primarily for testing or for running some single program that remains stable However, we're imagining that most Racket users will use the following style: - a single installation from a release, which is probably removed when upgrading to a new installation of a new version And we're both trying to capture what we like about how we want to work for users with a different style. I see the important feature of my work style as 'packages stay installed when I pull from git', and you see 'when I use a different version, I don't get spurious packages that I didn't wand and don't work'. Does that seem like a fair summary? Given that context, maybe the right thing here is (a) installation-specific packages by default and (b) a way to *upgrade* an existing installation when installing. That might be as simple as automatically running 'raco pkg migrate', but I think making it part of the installation step would make life easier for people, and perhaps an upgrade could avoid duplicating files. Sam _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev