On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > Those numbers seem pretty small in today's disk sizes, but I do agree > that there is value in being able to divide up the distribution and to > be able to stratify things so we can better keep track of our > dependencies.
I feel like I routinely download programs and dev environments where the distribution is over 100MBs. > (BTW, just a random question: have you thought about > trying to visualize the collection-level dependencies with, say, dot?) My student did that. It is absurd. I'll CC him to get the image. Jay > > It seems like you're after something that would allow multiple > collections with the same name. Is that part of it, all of it, or > mostly irrelevant to your main issue? > > Robby > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: >> [Sorry for the late reply.] >> >> >> On Jun 30, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >>> Which part is a symptom? My request for a description when there's >>> no owner? >>> >>> The no-owner fact? >>> >>> The unstable collects? >> >> "All of the above." >> >> Here are some questions that can demonstrate the problem better: >> >> 1. What text would you expect to find in the "purpose.txt" file of >> `unstable'? Of `data'? >> >> 2. My course code is installed in a local collection named `pl'. Why >> would I need to rename it if a new `pl' module was added to the >> racket distribution? >> >> 3. Say that you want to install apache on your machine. What would >> you think if your OS tells you that you need to install powerpoint >> for that? >> >> 4. Assuming that there is a `data' collection with a few known data >> structures implemented, what happens when there's another data >> structure that happens to be just the thing for some project X >> and otherwise it's not too useful, or at least it seems that way. >> Why can't project X come with a new data/foo module? >> >> In any case, keep in mind that there is another way to make me stop >> saying "coherent" and "package" -- give up the idea of ever getting a >> smaller racket distribution, and the problem is solved. We won't even >> need the distribution specs, since everything will be included... >> (From my POV, this would work out great since it looks like the >> general attitude towards it is that it's just something that *I* >> choose to be concerned with, and otherwise there's no problems.) >> >> For reference, here's a table of installer sizes (the Windows one, >> which has the highest compression) and source bundle size (the unix >> one, which has the highest compression in the sources bundles), with >> roughly one representative per year: >> >> bin src >> ver year size size >> --- ---- ---- ---- >> 53 1998 2.6M >> 103 2000 3.4M 4.6M >> 200 2001 4.3M 6.7M >> 203 2002 4.8M 6.0M >> 205 2003 5.8M 7.6M >> 209 2004 8.4M 11M >> 300 2005 12M 13M >> 372 2007 14M 15M >> 4.0 2008 22M 14M >> 4.2 2009 25M 15M >> 5.0 2010 28M 16M >> >> -- >> ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: >> http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >> > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev