[racket-dev] package-system update

>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:34:00 -0600, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> said:

    Matthew> At Sun, 14 Jul 2013 15:59:28 +0200, toganm at opensuse.org wrote:
    >> >>>>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 07:00:14 -0600, Matthew Flatt
    >> <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> said:
    >> 
    Matthew> Longer term, I think that OS-level packages/ports should probably
    Matthew> reflect a minimal Racket installation, and then further Racket
    Matthew> packages would be installed via the Racket package system.
    >> 
    >> Well, I would argue the other way around, as the whole package system would
    >> have been prepared for the distribution in mind, for example I build the
    >> package with shared-libraries, and avoding any static library, in addition to
    >> not to use bundled software ie. libffi.
    >> 
    >> This makes my life as the maintainer of the package easier as any possible
    >> bug/security fix would be easier.

    Matthew> I agree that all the things you list should be part of any
    Matthew> OS-specific packaging of Racket. I think all of those details are
    Matthew> part of the core build, so they would be consistent with a
    Matthew> "Minimal Racket" package.

Maybe I have missed it but is there, or will there be a documentation showing
the dependency of packages. Like package B requires A C and recommends F.

Currently the opensuse packages have a racket package and separate packages
for drracket, webserver, slideshow.

As a side note I have a patch that puts all generated documentation to
/usr/share/doc/packages as the Makefile 5.3.5 (also the previous ones) do not
honor the command line given parameters to the make command. I can send the
patch (which is trivial anyway) but I guess the when the system will be ready
the whole Makefile will be different.



    
    >> Having said that the idea sounds more like the Emacs elpa system, and
    >> the user has the option to either download the distro provided packages
    >> or elpa versions. So in a effect racket goes the similar way.

    Matthew> Yes, that sounds right.

    Ok then what is the current default install directory for the user
    downloaded packages ? It should be user's home directory by default as it
    is with elpa and its derivative melpa