[racket] Worried about the new package manager not storing each version of a package

From: Lawrence Woodman (lwoodman at vlifesystems.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 16:51:07 EDT 2013

On 28/08/13 12:27, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:45:23 +0200, Konrad Hinsen wrote:
>> Lawrence Woodman writes:
>>   > I have seen problems with version control crop up for so long and
>>   > so often that I can't see why people think Racket and it's
>>   > third-party packages would be immune to what has happened in every
>>   > other package eco-system I have used: Ruby, Tcl, Shared C Libraries
>>   > under Linux, Various Linux Distros, etc.
>> +1
>> I am all for solving real problems rather than hypothetical ones, but
>> I am also for learning from others' mistakes rather than first making
>> them myself.
> We've had many package-system discussions on the dev mailing list, and
> those who are interested or have opinions on the design of the package
> system may want to look there.
> In particular, see this message from mid-July:
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@racket-lang.org/msg09419.html
> The section "A Package-Based Racket" is of general interest, and it
> will be updated and incorporated into an upcoming blog post.
> The section "From Here to There" is obviously out of date. All of that
> is done, now.
> The "From Back There to Here" section is why I'm citing the post now.
> It's a reminder of how we got to the present design, and it's an
> attempt to remind everyone that those of us implementing the package
> system have had a lot of input over years; we've payed attention and
> done our best for this first cut.

Thanks for pointing to that link, it was very useful, as was some of
the discussion I was able to access around it.

While bringing my concerns to the mailing list and responding to other
peoples responses I had this nagging feeling that I was missing something.
I can see from the core devs that individually and collectively you have a
lot of experience to draw upon.  After reading through some of the messages
on the dev list around the linked post, I feel a lot more satisfied that 
if the
potential problems that I have expressed appear, then a solution will be 

Dependency management is certainly a hard problem and all of the package 
that I have used have their issues.  Who knows, the Rackety solution, by 
not trying
to emulate and tweak a previous model, may come up with something 
completely novel.

Best wishes


vLife Systems Ltd
Registered Office: The Meridian, 4 Copthall House, Station Square, Coventry, CV1 2FL
Registered in England and Wales No. 06477649

Posted on the users mailing list.