On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 10:16:23 AM UTC+8, mflatt wrote:
>
> At Fri, 1 May 2015 18:11:20 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Lynch wrote:
> > Currently there is no way to directly attached arbitrary property
> > information to a collection.
>
> An "info.rkt" file serves that role, where the `setup/getinfo` library
> provides the API for querying "info.rkt" files. (The "info.rkt" format
> is also used for package information. For single-collection packages,
> it's the same file.)
>
Here is the info.rkt file for /usr/share/racket/pkgs/plot/
#lang info
(define collection 'multi)
(define deps '("plot-lib" "plot-gui-lib" "plot-doc"))
(define implies '("plot-lib" "plot-gui-lib" "plot-doc"))
(define pkg-desc "Functions (and docs and tests) for plotting")
(define pkg-authors '(ntoronto))
No mention of a version. I guess maturity will go here? But yes, excuse
me, no need of a separate file for properties as there already is one. ...
Sure looks to me like there is conflation between the terms collection and
package.
> Well, maybe it's little more complicated than that. In general,
> multiple directories can be installed and spliced together as the
> content of a collection. Each "info.rkt" file can have information
> that's specific to it's particular piece of a collection.
>
> In any case, collections don't have versions, ring levels, etc. Those
> are properties of packages.
>
>
ah, so in racket I can't have versions attached to my source code
(collection)? gosh So if I install via package, and install via
directory, I'm not allowed to know if the two are the same version by
checking the info.rkt file? May do diffs, but then what I wanted to know,
say, how far apart they would be in version space.
>
> > Asked another way, when I do 'apt-get install racket', or an analogous
> > command, do no further installation commands (fresh out of the box),
>
> I think you're needlessly avoiding some terminology that we do have.
> You mean "when I install a main distribution of Racket...".
>
I purposely avoided the terminology as I find it inconsistent and
conflated. That is probably because I'm dense and or haven't studied it
enough. So I phrased the question in a manner as to get an answer without
having to interpret the terms .. sigh .. don't see an answer.
>
> > and
> > then use (require X) in a module, with no quotes around the X, then
> can I
> > know for certain that X is a module that was found in a collection that
> > comes from a ring-0 package?
>
> All packages in the main distribution are ring-0 packages.
>
But not all ring-0 packages are in the main distribution -- so the answer
to my question is that they are not identical. That would mean that
Robby's suggestion of not using the term 'main distribution X's' is
unnecessary and ring-0 is preferable is not possible (as the two are not
identical).
>
> > Also, is it true that for all X modules
> > blessed with the property of being ring 0, X can be reached in this
> manner,
> > or via #lang?
>
> Not all ring-0 packages are in the main distribution.
>
=> ring-0 Xs not equal to main distribution Xs. So two terms are needed.
>
>
> > [...] 'main distribution collections'
>
> I think "main distribution collections" is not going to work as a
> concept, because packages other than those in the main distribution can
> add to collections that are also represented in the main distribution.
> That's why ring levels and such are package concepts, as opposed to
> collection concepts.
>
hmm .. but if installing a contributors package modifies collections in the
main distribution -- then that modified collection is no longer part of the
main distribution. I miss the contradiction.
Indeed if my nice trusted ring-0 main distribution collection is modified
by installing a lower ring contribution, not only is the collection no
longer a main distribution collection, but it is also no longer a ring-0
collection - indeed it should even have a different version .. and
shouldn't info.rkt tell me this happened?
----
Ok, so I've got the idea here, and that is the subject is outside my
comprehension. I sure don't want to send this discussion in circles
because I'm being dense. I just hope that the chat was worthwhile. That
doesn't hold me back from using racket though. It is pretty easy to
install packages. It is the adding them that I'm not read for. Alas.
Thanks for your patience.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/bbc61e1c-2af2-46aa-8450-1e61088d96fa%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
