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
