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

From: Guillaume Rousse (rousse at ccr.jussieu.fr)
Date: Mon Oct 7 14:55:43 EDT 2002

Le Dimanche 6 Octobre 2002 20:06, Jens Axel Søgaard a écrit :
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> 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.
OK, i'm going this way.

> 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. 
Wrong. You're reasonning with raw rpm management in mind. Should plt package 
even get splitted in gazillion of subpackage, a single 'upmi drscheme' should 
ensure everything is retrieved and installed properly with up-to-date 
version. And gui is even available for newbies.

> Getting the devel-package of
> foo with a version that matches the version of foo installed is often
> imposible.
Wrong again. Just having -devel package requires same version and release of 
main package is enough.

> >>> 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.
Package should rather respect cross-distribution standards, as Linux Standard 
Base or File Hierarchy Standard. Having non-standard setup in other rpm 
tarball shouldn't prevent other to comply.

> >> 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.
Well, again i think descriptions should be as neutral as possible. It is up to 
user to decide, not to packager to play marketing department ...
Guillaume Rousse <rousse at ccr.jussieu.fr>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html

Posted on the users mailing list.