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
