[racket] Should `raco pkg update <x>` presume --update-deps?

I don't have a strong opinion yet on which default is better, but consider
the following case:
If user A installs package X that depends on Y, and does not yet have Y,
then he will have both new versions of X and Y.
But a user who already has an old version package Y and installs X will
have a different installation than the other user, which seems strange and
may lead to difficulties in debugging package X failures from user reports.

For me, as long as a package Y is updated by either fixing bugs or adding
new features while leaving the old features untouched, and is therefore not
backward incompatible, should count only as "same version, only better".
However, if a package X is updated but depends on the new features/bug
fixes of Y, then it may break.

So I tend to think that all dependencies should be updated along with a
package, as long as the dependencies themselves respect the
"no-backward-incompatibility" change.

Or maybe I misunderstand the package system.

Laurent




On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Greg Hendershott <greghendershott at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I agree this example isn't a good reason to make --update-deps the default.
>
> I expected `raco pkg update x` would update x and all its
> dependencies. My expectation was wrong. What might be a good reason
> would be if many other people shared this wrong expectation, but I
> don't know that's the case.
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Greg Hendershott
> > <greghendershott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> In response to my "I can't think of a situation" you raise with your
> >> own "I can't think of a situation". Well played sir. :)
> >>
> >> The updated markdown parser is more likely to handle some corner cases
> >> than the old one, e.g. being less finicky about requiring a blank line
> >> after some element.
> >>
> >> I had updated Frog to be able to use the new version and give those
> >> improved results, but still be compatible with the older version.
> >>
> >> I guess my thinking was, the newer parser was such a huge redesign, I
> >> wanted the safety net of someone being able to revert to the older
> >> version (at least temporarily).
> >>
> >> So that's why I bumped the ver on the markdown, but not the ver for
> >> frog's dep on it.
> >>
> >> Probably I over-thunk it. And the new parser seems solid so far. As a
> >> result, I should just bump frog's own version, and bump the version of
> >> markdown it requires. And then all will be well.
> >>
> >> As for the general question: I think you're saying that with the
> >> status quo `raco pkg update <x>`, if an installed dep is older than
> >> required, it will install the very latest version (perhaps newer than
> >> required), otherwise it will do nothing?  Whereas with --update-deps
> >> it does the equivalent of an individual `raco pkg update <dep>` on
> >> every dep transitively, so you'll end up with the very latest of
> >> everything?
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. As you mention "update = remove + install", I
> > hope this result is predictable. Imagine, for a moment that someone
> > used your old markdown package with my unreleased super-secret Racket
> > Wiki server. Then, they decided that they wanted your blog engine too.
> > You wouldn't expect installing "frog" to update the markdown package.
> > Since "raco pkg update <x>" is literally just removing the package and
> > adding it again (with a tiny bit of a barrier in case the second
> > install fails), it works the same way.
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion about your suggestion of switching the
> > default behavior, but I'm not sure your example is the best reason to
> > switch it.
> >
> > My attitude is that when you "raco pkg update <x>" you are planning on
> > getting new behavior in <x> and not "error fixes on <x> and everything
> > else that it uses" (where "better Markdown parsing" can be seen as a
> > fixing an error in the old parser). But when you use "--update-deps"
> > (or "-a") then you are planning on just looking for new versions of
> > anything. I like the feeling of stability this pattern gives.
> >
> > One case where I think "--update-deps" should definitely be implied is
> > when a package "implies" other packages, such as 'main-distribution'
> > implying 'srfi', because the "implies" is transparent, so the user
> > doesn't necessarily know which package is really providing the feature
> > they want updated.
> >
> > In any case, I think I will probably be able to continuing living if
> > "--update-deps" were the default, but I want a better example or a few
> > +1s.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> > --
> > Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
> > Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
> > http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay
> >
> > "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20131111/9f42cf40/attachment.html>