I agree with this. In particular, I like to be able to use libraries in testing code that the rest of the library doesn't depend on, and I'd like to not make users install those extra libraries. Sam <div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 15, 2013 4:47 PM, "Matthew Flatt" <<a href="mailto:mflatt@cs.utah.edu">mflatt@cs.utah.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> We have several packages "X" that imply packages "X-lib" and "X-doc" --- and that seems good to me. Some "X"s also imply "X-test", while other "X"s do not imply "X-test" (even though "X-test" exists). We should change one of those sets to be consistent with the other. It's important that "X-lib" and "X-test" end up in the same source repository, but I don't think that "X" clients necessarily need tests for "X". So, I suggest that "X" should not imply "X-test". Other opinions? _________________________ Racket Developers list: <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a> </blockquote></div>