[racket-dev] package-system update

From: Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado (iam at juanfra.info)
Date: Sun Jul 14 17:58:23 EDT 2013

On 07/14/13 15:00, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> At Sun, 14 Jul 2013 02:54:06 +0200, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote:
>>> On 07/13/13 20:56, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> ** Downloading release installers from PLT
>>>> The "www.racket-lang.org" site's big blue button will provide the same
>>>> installers that it does now, at least by default. That is, the content
>>>> provided by the installer --- DrRacket, teaching languages, etc. ---
>>>> will be pretty much the same as now.
>>> Will be also available a big tarball with the source and all batteries
>>> included, like the actual "unix source"?. Will be possible to compile a
>>> full distro of racket with the usual "configure && make && make install"?
> To clarify (because I now realize this may not have been apparent to
> others), you have in mind delivering Racket's main distribution as an
> OpenBSD port, right?

I'm not sure yet. I have three options:
- One big port with one big tarball. Like the actual port. Easiest in 
short term, probably a bad choice in the long term.
- One port for the racket core + one port for each package from the PLT 
distro. I should create a port-module ( http://mdoc.su/o/port-modules ) 
for raco ports. Something similar to the port module of python or ruby. 
A lot of work for me.
- Just one port for racket core. It's my favorite.

> At Sun, 14 Jul 2013 06:00:17 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> This was not been part of the plan. Now that you ask, though, I see how
>> it makes sense to package the core source together with package sources
>> for a given set of packages --- including the "main-distribution"
>> package, for a site that distributes "main-distribution" installers.
> Longer term, I think that OS-level packages/ports should probably
> reflect a minimal Racket installation, and then further Racket packages
> would be installed via the Racket package system.
> But I can also see how a "main Racket distribution" package/port that
> resides completely within the OS's system could also make sense,
> especially in the short term. A core+package source tarball should make
> that easier.

I'm worried about something. What will be the policy related to the 
bugfix releases of the packages?. Now, if some part of racket is broken 
on OpenBSD, I temporally patch the port and wait the next release of 
racket. If I decide go with the third option (only maintain the port of 
racket core), racket team will release quick bugfix updates to packages 
without wait to the next release of racket core?.

Posted on the dev mailing list.