The Racket repository
![]() The `--binary-lib` mode is like `--binary`, but it also omits documentation to form a "binary library package". The `--binary-lib` flag and "X-lib" vs. "X-doc" approaches solve the same problem with different trade-offs: * When a package is split into "-lib" and "-doc" packages, then it's easier install non-documentation parts, and it's possible to install them from source. A programmer has to work more to split the packages, however, and the library and its implementation must have separate sources (i.e., no or restricted in-source documentation). * When a package is just "X", then users can install a no-source, no-documentation version by specifying `--binary-lib`, but only when the package is available from some catalog and provider in built form (such as from a distribution site or a package-build service). In the long run, I think that relying on `--binary-lib will be best and typical for most packages. The "X-lib" plus "X-doc" approach that's common in the current distribution's packages, meanwhile, will likely stick around for basic packages that are commonly useful in constrained settings (including the setting of a package-build service). |
||
---|---|---|
native-pkgs@60c510ba85 | ||
pkgs | ||
racket | ||
.gitattributes | ||
.gitignore | ||
.gitmodules | ||
.mailmap | ||
.travis.yml | ||
INSTALL.txt | ||
Makefile | ||
README.txt |
This is the source code for the main Racket distribution. See "INSTALL.txt" for information on building Racket. License ------- Racket Copyright (c) 2010-2014 PLT Design Inc. Racket is distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). This means that you can link Racket into proprietary applications, provided you follow the rules stated in the LGPL. You can also modify Racket; if you distribute a modified version, you must distribute it under the terms of the LGPL, which in particular means that you must release the source code for the modified software. See racket/src/COPYING_LESSER.txt for more information.