<div dir="ltr">I vote for this change. I'll happily update my package in order to make it easier for others to contribute new ones.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>Carl Eastlund</div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Matthew Flatt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mflatt@cs.utah.edu" target="_blank">mflatt@cs.utah.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I think more people need to speak up on this question --- particularly<br> authors of existing packages, since the current proposal necessitates<br> an update to each existing package.<br> <br> The proposal is to make single-package collections the default:<br> <br> * If a directory used as a package has no "info.rkt" file, then it is<br> treated as a single-collection package.<br> <br> The single collection's name is the same as the package name (which<br> tends to be the directory name, but it depends on how you install<br> the package).<br> <br> * If a directory used as a package has an "info.rkt" file, but<br> "info.rkt" doesn't explicitly say that the package is<br> multi-collection, then it's still a single-collection package.<br> <br> The "info.rkt" file might supply a name for the single collection,<br> instead of leaving it to the package name; supplying a name would be<br> a requirement for ring-0 packages.<br> <br> For each existing package, the author would need to add a line to the<br> package's "info.rkt" to indicate that it is a multi-collection package<br> (or change the layout to single-collection mode, with the caveat that<br> the package won't work with v5.3.4).<br> <br> Any more votes for/against?<br> <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br> _________________________<br> Racket Developers list:<br> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>