Prototyping a New Package Manager for Racket

Last updated: home

Racket has two package managers, but I do things differently enough to need a third called zcpkg. It will be done when it's done.

When I started, I was driven by a few objectives:

One thing's for sure: This is hard. This one project is why I have not updated this website in over a month.

zcpkg is smart enough to handle dependency hell, in that conflicting versions and circular dependencies do not make it burst into flames. However, it does not define collections in a Racket installation, and it does not presume on the deliverables a package creates. I am substituting a file-oriented toolchain for Racket's canonical collection-oriented toolchain. I also don't want to use raco pkg because that would defeat the purpose of what I'm doing. The result? A huge scope of work. I have to use only the bindings available in mininal Racket. I'll leave the specifics of my design for future articles.

Despite the incumbents, I think a package manager for a language-oriented programming language is largely uncharted territory. Ada, Rust, Java, JavaScript, Python, etc. all change slowly enough to develop idioms for sharing work. Racket's idioms are deeply influenced by an assumption that you are contributing to a Racket installation with the same level of commitment to backwards-compatibility as the PLT. As a user of Racket, I'm sold on the idea that language is subject to change. In that situation, your idioms and best practices look like personal habits to me. This magnifies the subjective elements of package management. How do you really form a community around a particular use of a language this malleable?

Think about what happens when you release a collection with conflicting modules in a Racket package. To get around the conflict, you need to reconfigure or tether a new Racket installation if you want to use both packages at the same time. In general: you don't depend on packages in Racket, you depend on a particular Racket installation.

Matchmaking Giants with Sexy Shoulders

I ended up doing a lot of reading on package managers, looking for good design decisions to borrow. I found out that there's a package manager called Nix that already does a lot of what I was looking for. Deterministic, reproducible, functional builds.—mmmm—Cross-ecosystem. Atomic upgrades. No dependency hell—oh god don't stop—Non-privileged installation. Capture everything down to the C compiler's compiler.

It also has its own functional language for complete, unambiguous dependency specifications. Ah, it's only for Linux and macOS. Damn. I don't have an particular love for Windows, but if I'm targeting Racket programmers, I should to support it.

If only there was a cross-platform tool that would let me define a language like Nix's.

Building a path from Nix to Racket

My hypothesis is that a Racket package manager would be a huge improvement over raco pkg if it has a way to operate across ecosystems, offer at least some of Nix's (Guix's?) guarentees, and allow you to define a custom new Racket installation and non-Racket dependencies as a composition of packages.

Again: Huge project. All I can do at this point is experiment and try to figure out how all this would work. I also don't expect much adoption of zcpkg since this is not a PLT-sponsored project. This is part a personal, ongoing effort to use Racket in a way that I find fulfilling.

However, if you follow my work or want to use my Racket projects, a day may come where I will require zcpkg to install them (My packages on are still subject to my decision in an earlier announcement). That day might not come soon, but I invested enough time to at least try it out.

Normally I wait until a project is useable before I announce it, but I made an exception here. Package managers are meant to address social problems as well as technical ones, and the worst thing I can do is let zcpkg accumulate my imperfect assumptions about how people will behave. So: Talk to me! I invite any Racket programmer to look at the source code and open an issue if they see any red flags, or if they even have a request for what they believe zcpkg should do.

Knowing your opinions doesn't mean that I'll implement a feature that I think you will want, it means that I'll be careful not to bake something in that makes your life harder.

In any case, this will take a while. If you are generally supportive of this project, then please consider helping me fund it.