On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:31:26 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > In this particular case, if `raco setup` hadn't reported failure, the > > > builds might have hobbled along; I'm not sure. The snapshot build > > > generally relies on dependencies being accurate, and I don't think it's > > > worth thinking hard about which inaccuracies might be survivable for a > > > distribution build. > > > > Can you say more about how the dependency info is used in the snapshot > > build process? In this case, I would think that the minimal build > > doesn't include either package involved in this, and the regular build > > includes both. Would that mean that the dependency error wouldn't > > break things? > > I think you're correct, but.. > > > Or are there other uses of the dependency info in the > > snapshot process? > > ... I wouldn't bet against that. > > I think the snapshot system is solid, but my experience over many small > changes to the package system is that any invariant is used in more > places than I remember; when we change or remove some assumption, then > I end up fixing more places than I expect. > > It might be, for example, that installers would get created > successfully, but installation would somehow trip over the assumption > that `raco setup` won't report any errors in an initial install. Or > maybe the install works, but as soon as you try to install a package, > it runs into the same problem. I don't see either of those things > happening in this case, but those are examples of where I may have > overlooked something. > > This reminds me a lot of how Jacob would talk while he was working on planet. :) Robby
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev