On Jul 2, Robby Findler wrote:
> Those numbers seem pretty small in today's disk sizes,
Obviously -- but the issue is not diskspace.
And Jay McCarthy wrote:
> I feel like I routinely download programs and dev environments where
> the distribution is over 100MBs.
winooski:~/mail eli> rpm -q --queryformat '%{SIZE} %{NAME}\n' tcl perl ghc js
python ruby lua plt-scheme | sort -n
595769 lua
962834 js
1441553 ghc
1679403 ruby
3669827 tcl
22866733 python
35175610 perl
69558809 plt-scheme
Robby:
> 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.
Yes, that's exactly my point.
> (BTW, just a random question: have you thought about trying to
> visualize the collection-level dependencies with, say, dot?)
I didn't get to that yet. I suspect that it's not what Petey did: it
should be a graph of dependencies between collections rather than
modules. Cycles there should be much more alarming IMO than looking
at the module-level graph.
> 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?
It is relevant, but inaccurate: what I'm after is a way to split
"packages" below the collection level. Without that, the only way to
make an extensible `data' thing would be to have collections like
`data-list', `data-stack', etc. (I'm *not* suggesting that as a
better alternative...)
--
((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
