great, thanks, that was quick!
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu>wrote: > In the meantime, the images pkg is now broken up and images-lib depends > only on draw-lib (and some unstable stuff), no longer on the full gui > library or the docs. > > Robby > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Sounds good! >> >> I think as long as it's possible to somehow choose between byte-code and >> source-code packages/distributions, there should not be too much to worry >> about. My server would be very happy with byte-code packages, and my >> desktop with a full source-code Racket. >> >> Laurent >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccar...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi Laurent, >>> >>> I think that the solution to this are "binary" builds.... versions of >>> a package that only have the bytecode and documentation. >>> >>> We're a bit behind on binary builds, because when they were discussed >>> for the main repository [1] they were rejected. I hope to be able to >>> still provide them for ring-0 packages through the results of DrDr >>> running tests (and thus compiling) on those packages, but it's in the >>> future. >>> >>> The result would be that when you installed a package in "binary" >>> form, you would only get the "deps" and not the "build-deps". (And >>> you'd probably get those in binary form too.) >>> >>> Jay >>> >>> 1. http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@racket-lang.org/msg08879.html >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > (this is not a complain, just an inquiry) >>> > >>> > While installing Racket on a small server, I wanted to avoid >>> installing gui >>> > and doc related libraries. >>> > The minimal install was great! >>> > >>> > Then I wanted to install a package of my own (the aptly named >>> "bazaar"), >>> > which requires "images" and other gui libs (which I actually would not >>> use >>> > on the server), among other things, but no doc >>> > >>> > But the "images" package draws racket-doc and gui-doc dependencies, >>> which in >>> > turn draws practically all of Racket. And it then takes a much longer >>> time >>> > for `raco setup` to do its job that I had hoped for. >>> > >>> > Certainly, this can be resolved by splitting "images" and "bazaar" >>> into lib, >>> > gui and docs packages, but I foresee another problem: >>> > It's difficult to enforce such a split for third-party libraries, as >>> it puts >>> > the burden on the user. >>> > And the first package like that to be installed will again draw all of >>> > Racket dependencies. >>> > >>> > This is probably not a trivial matter, but what can be done about this? >>> > >>> > My dream would be that gui and doc dependencies are never triggered, >>> without >>> > preventing the packages I actually use to be downloaded, but I don't >>> know >>> > how this could actually be ensured without a good amount of magic. >>> > >>> > Merely preventing downloads does not sound like a good option though. >>> > >>> > I bet you've already discussed this far and wide, so are there any >>> plans? >>> > >>> > Laurent >>> > >>> > _________________________ >>> > Racket Developers list: >>> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> >>> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University >>> http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay >>> >>> "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 >>> >> >> >> _________________________ >> Racket Developers list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >> >> >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev