Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-17 Thread Jay McCarthy
I can make a -lib version of jq for you. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Dan Liebgold wrote: > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 3:30:56 PM UTC-7, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> Just installing rackunit-lib will avoid the docs and tests, which should >> substantially reduce the footprint. >> > > Th

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Dan Liebgold
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 3:30:56 PM UTC-7, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > Just installing rackunit-lib will avoid the docs and tests, which should > substantially reduce the footprint. > That's a fix for rackunit... I'm also using Jay's awesome job-queue package, which pulls in scribble whi

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Dan Liebgold
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 3:48:34 PM UTC-7, Vincent St-Amour wrote: > `raco pkg remove rackunit && raco pkg remove --auto` should do it. > "raco pkg remove --auto -i" did it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Ah, I didn't even know about --auto. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 6:48 PM Vincent St-Amour < stamo...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > `raco pkg remove rackunit && raco pkg remove --auto` should do it. > > Vincent > > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:42:23 -0500, > Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > > > Unfortunatel

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Vincent St-Amour
`raco pkg remove rackunit && raco pkg remove --auto` should do it. Vincent On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:42:23 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Unfortunately, I don't think there's an analogue of apt autoremove, so you > probably have to do it manually. > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 6:37 PM Dan Lie

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Ed Hirgelt
Won’t raco pkg remove and raco pkg empty-trash do the trick? Ed > On Mar 16, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Unfortunately, I don't think there's an analogue of apt autoremove, so you > probably have to do it manually. > > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 6:37 PM Dan Liebgold

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Unfortunately, I don't think there's an analogue of apt autoremove, so you probably have to do it manually. On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 6:37 PM Dan Liebgold wrote: > On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 3:30:56 PM UTC-7, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Just installing rackunit-lib will avoid the docs and tes

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Dan Liebgold
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 3:30:56 PM UTC-7, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > Just installing rackunit-lib will avoid the docs and tests, which should > substantially reduce the footprint. > > Sam > Very cool now, say I've already gone and installed rackunit. How can I remove all those dep

Re: [racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
Just installing rackunit-lib will avoid the docs and tests, which should substantially reduce the footprint. Sam On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, 6:25 PM Dan Liebgold wrote: > Hi - > > (This is a continuation of some discussions I've had on the dev list a > couple years ago.) > > We continue to have perfo

[racket-users] minimal vs full racket performance issues

2017-03-16 Thread Dan Liebgold
Hi - (This is a continuation of some discussions I've had on the dev list a couple years ago.) We continue to have performance issues stemming from Racket's runtime file system usage. Hopefully someone can shed some more light on the issues so we can adjust our usages... We use a minimal inst