[racket-dev] updated proposal for moving to packages

At Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:51:55 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> 
> Could this accidentally interfere with release v.5.3.5? 
> (That is, should we wait until this release is pushed out?)

Yes, we should wait until after v5.3.5. I imagined that v5.3.5 would
happen on Monday, but if it takes longer, then the switch will have to
wait.


> Could your revised plan include instructions on how to build 
> racket and friends from scratch? 

Can you say more about what is needed in addition to

  https://github.com/mflatt/racket/blob/pkg/INSTALL.txt

?

We can continue to simplify the process and refine those instructions,
of course.


> On Jun 15, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> 
> > At Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:44:17 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> >> I think we have, roughly, two options:
> >> 
> >> 1. Something like the split Matthew's tree proposes.  In fact, I think
> >> we need to split some things further, so that `gui-lib` doesn't depend
> >> on scribble-related things.
> >> 2. Something much, much more coarse-grained, such as the current split
> >> between the 'textual', 'graphical', 'drracket', and 'full'
> >> distributions. Note that even these don't really make sense because of
> >> documentation build dependencies.
> >> 
> >> I think that 1 is the right choice.
> >> 
> >> I also think that continuing to develop in separate branches as
> >> proposals is a mistake. It's very hard to understand what's going on
> >> in the `pkg` version of the tree without using it -- I certainly
> >> didn't. it's also very hard to construct working trees in this fashion
> >> without anyone using the code. If we're going to make this transition
> >> soon, we should do it now, and then reorganize packages as necessary.
> > 
> > I agree, and so I'll renew the proposal that we make the switch.
> > 
> > Could we switch with option 1 on, say, Tuesday?
> > 
> > _________________________
> >  Racket Developers list:
> >  http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev