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

That doesn't sound like the right conclusion to me from this particular
evidence. I'm not sure if I'm falling for the "easy semantics" dream here,
but "update = remove + install" sounds really nice. (So would "update =
remove + remove-all-deps + install" tho. :)

Robby


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
<samth at cs.indiana.edu>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Related to 'update = remove + install', when the user who's issue
> triggered this conversation ran using `--update-deps`, it didn't work:
>
> > raco pkg update --update-deps frog
> raco pkg update: could not remove package
>  package not currently installed
>   current scope: user
>   package: (markdown 0.5)
>   currently installed:
>    base
>    frog
>    parsack
>    rackjure
>    markdown
>    find-parent-dir
>
> I'm not sure how this could happen, but I think it indicates that
> 'remove + install' may be too simplistic to work in general.
>
> Sam
> ____________________
>   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/20131111/625be7cf/attachment.html>