[racket-dev] [plt] Push #27511: master branch updated

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at 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 <mflatt at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130917/e07e70f4/attachment.html>