# The doc make the packages fail to build **URL:** \ **Category:** Questions & Answers\ **Created:** [August 27, 2025, 7:28am UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/the-doc-make-the-packages-fail-to-build/3925 "2025-08-27T07:28:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![damien\_mattei](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/damien_mattei/32/2706_2.png) [@damien\_mattei](https://racket.discourse.group/u/damien_mattei)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 7:28am UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/the-doc-make-the-packages-fail-to-build/3925/1 "2025-08-27T07:28:49Z")
Hello, this is not real errors but now i set : ```scheme @defmodule[SRFI-105 #:reader]{ This reader package provides the SRFI-105 Curly Infix reader/parser. } @defmodule[Scheme+]{ This package provides the Scheme+ language definitions. } ``` this above in the doc it apparently fail the module build: [https://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/server/built/fail/SRFI-105-for-Racket.txt](https://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/server/built/fail/SRFI-105-for-Racket.txt) [https://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/server/built/fail/Scheme-PLUS-for-Racket.txt](https://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/server/built/fail/Scheme-PLUS-for-Racket.txt) in fact when installed from github source it show errors but works i should perheaps not mention SRFI-105 in doc and it should works the reality is that now and in future version SRFI-105 will depands of Scheme+ build and i have no control over the order the package builder build the modules on the server Regards, ---
**Author:** ![mflatt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/mflatt/32/6_2.png) [@mflatt](https://racket.discourse.group/u/mflatt)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 3:09pm UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/the-doc-make-the-packages-fail-to-build/3925/2 "2025-08-27T15:09:57Z")
I'm not sure I understand the issue. The two packages depend on each other, so they should both declare that dependency. (The dependency declaration for Scheme+ on SRFI-105 appears to be commented out.) Dependency declarations are the way to control the package-build order. Maybe the concern was about packages being mutually dependent. Although modules cannot be mutually dependent, packages are allowed to be mutually dependent — and then they will be built and installed together. ---
**Author:** ![damien\_mattei](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/damien_mattei/32/2706_2.png) [@damien\_mattei](https://racket.discourse.group/u/damien_mattei)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 4:01pm UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/the-doc-make-the-packages-fail-to-build/3925/3 "2025-08-27T16:01:43Z")
> [@mflatt](#): > > I'm not sure I understand the issue. The two packages depend on each other, so they should both declare that dependency. (The dependency declaration for Scheme+ on SRFI-105 appears to be commented out.) It is normal to be commented , it was in previous version, but perheaps i can try to decomment it (but will make a circular reference) The codes works fine , i just changed the unfinished documentation and commited too early. It is true that there sould be 20 lines of code common to the 2 package, to not create circular dependancies (but perheaps as you say ...) that i had duplicated in the 2 modules, not elegant... > [@mflatt](#): > > Although modules cannot be mutually dependent, packages are allowed to be mutually dependent i just,while writing my reply, provided the common code from Scheme+ and required it in SRFI-105 (and commented the duplicate code in SRFI-105) > [@mflatt](#): > > and then they will be built and installed together. but even if they build the system report errors in red and i think this result in Fails statut in Racket package system, so i prefer avoid circular reference between package even if they should be allowed. Get back to the problem: it is only a documentation problem, no real problem in code. It is because i mentioned the SRFI-105 reader in the Scheme+ doc... i do not know what magic do the package manager but it fails because that. A solution would be to just mention SRFI-105 in text not use in doc , not use some macro that do weird things. I had commited that in new versions to check this idea.Both for SRFI-105 and Scheme+, just have to wait a few hours what will be the status of packages...... ---
**Author:** ![mflatt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/mflatt/32/6_2.png) [@mflatt](https://racket.discourse.group/u/mflatt)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 4:35pm UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/the-doc-make-the-packages-fail-to-build/3925/4 "2025-08-27T16:35:01Z")
You can make a cross-document reference "indirect", which means that the other document doesn't need to be installed, and a link rendered in local documentation will go to [https://docs.racket-lang.org](https://docs.racket-lang.org) if the target document isn't installed. Only some kinds of documentation links can be indirect. As examples, `seclink` and `racketmodname` recognize `#:indirect` to create indirect links. ---
**Author:** ![damien\_mattei](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/damien_mattei/32/2706_2.png) [@damien\_mattei](https://racket.discourse.group/u/damien_mattei)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2025, 9:50pm UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/the-doc-make-the-packages-fail-to-build/3925/5 "2025-08-27T21:50:29Z")
> [@mflatt](#): > > You can make a cross-document reference "indirect", which means that the other document doesn't need to be installed, and a link rendered in local documentation will go to [https://docs.racket-lang.org](https://docs.racket-lang.org) if the target document isn't installed. > > Only some kinds of documentation links can be indirect. As examples, `seclink` and `racketmodname` recognize `#:indirect` to create indirect links. I do not understand how to make that concretely. The 2 projects now no more fail. The offending lines where only those containing a reference in the documentation to SRFI-105, that is the one already removed and also those which look like that: ```scheme @codeblock|{ #reader SRFI-105 (require Scheme+) {3 * 5 + 2} 17 }| ``` i had to removed the first line of code which is annoying for the documentation: ```scheme @codeblock|{ (require Scheme+) {3 * 5 + 2} 17 }| ``` > [@mflatt](#): > > The two packages depend on each other, so they should both declare that dependency. (The dependency declaration for Scheme+ on SRFI-105 appears to be commented out.) i will try your solution to uncomment out and make the 2 packages depend on each other even if it is only for documentation. Anyway it is true they are almost used together. Wait for the next build.... ---
**Author:** ![damien\_mattei](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/racket.discourse.group/damien_mattei/32/2706_2.png) [@damien\_mattei](https://racket.discourse.group/u/damien_mattei)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2025, 9:35am UTC](https://racket.discourse.group/t/the-doc-make-the-packages-fail-to-build/3925/6 "2025-08-28T09:35:25Z")
this works now with your @mflatt solution of uncommenting out the dependancies between ,not the modules, but the packages.