[racket] shell-completion package missing

From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (samth at cs.indiana.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 6 12:21:58 EDT 2013

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> Yesterday, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>> It's not just you. I've accumulated versions of Racket for OS X that
>> I've kept "just in case" whenever I install a new version: 5.2.1,
>> 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.5.  None have a meta subdir under collects.
> Yes, the meta collection was never intended to be distributed.  The
> plan for the shell completions was to have a way to put the files in a
> proper place, and move them to a non-meta collection.  Both have
> already happened in the git head.
> Yesterday, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Vlad Kozin <vladilen.kozin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Docs say:
>> >
>> > > The "meta" collection is only available in the Racket Full distribution
>> >
>> > What's Racket Full distribution?
>> The "Full" distribution includes everything in the repository,
>> including tests and libraries that weren't widely used.  It's a
>> concept that's going away with the new package system.
> It shouldn't really go away.  The thing is that some packages are
> things that people will rarely want, like the web page sources, or
> specific server sources.

They aren't going away in the sense of being un-installable, but now
they're all individually installable as packages.

>> It appears the it's no longer available on the release page -- Eli,
>> do you know what happened there?
> It was never a download -- it only existed on pre.racket-lang.org .

Are you sure?  I'm confident that I've downloaded some full distributions.

>> I think it was probably a mistake to have the shell completion
>> scripts only in the Full distribution, but since we've re-organized
>> the distribution it won't be a problem in the future..
> It wasn't a mistake since the main point of moving them into a
> non-meta is to have some way of putting the files in the proper
> place.  Without that, all you'd get is a directory with some files
> that you'll need to know how you wire into your shell.  Assuming that
> you know how to do that, you can just get the files and do so:

I think we're actually agreeing here. `meta` is not the right place
for shell completion code.


Posted on the users mailing list.