[plt-scheme] Fwd: [Contrib-Rpm] drscheme-202-1mdk

Eli Barzilay wrote:
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
> On Oct  6, Guillaume Rousse wrote:

>>> But these are a tiny fraction of the whole thing.  Plus, I never
>>> understood the point of having a -devel rpm for a language, unless
>>> it's just some very limited run-time thing.

Me neither.

>> Well, if you're just a perl user, you don't need perl-devel. You
>> need it only if you want to compile perl modules. Splitting package
>> is a way to give more flexibility to your setup. Of course, it also
>> suppose you have some rpm-management tools over raw rpm, as urpmi or
>> apt-get.
>
> Oh, whatever (I know nothing on these tools)...  It just sounds like a
> hard thing to decide what goes where.  If you're aiming at a basic
> minimal set of files for pure users, you don't need the documentation
> tree also, help-desk, mzc, etc, but pulling these things out might
> break other things (I'm not sure).  BTW, if you are doing the
> separation work anyway, then a seperate mred+drscheme rpm sounds like
> a good idea.

I wote for one package and one package only. If one makes such packages
then one should be prepared to keep them uptodate (for a while at least),
and the one package deal is far the easiest to maintain. Furthermore one
package is easier for new users to handle. Getting the devel-package of
foo with a version that matches the version of foo installed is often
imposible.

>>> Also, I would call the rpm plt for the same reason as the directory
>>> name,
>> I found the package following a link called "Download DrScheme", so
>> i assumed i downloaded only a part of plf project.

I think you should ask the PLT team for advice - for file structure
as well as license issues [don't assume - check]. I think it would
be nice if the directory structure for the tar/rpm/deb/* was the
same - although one should also respect the different distributions.

>> I just used the original plt rpm description also. BTW, using
>> personal appreciations in a software description is wrong: if you
>> package it, it is generally because you find it good enough.

For some one that just need /a/ Scheme, it would be a good thing
to point out that PLT Scheme is [one-of] the best all round implementation.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard