Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hello Pierre, > > Pierre Neidhardt <[email protected]> skribis: > >> Wouldn't it make sense to move DrRacket to a separate output? I take >> that most advanced users use something else (who said Emacs?) and >> DrRacket might eat up a decent amount of disk space + extra dependencies >> by itself. > > I don’t think it’s a matter of being an “advanced” user or not (DrRacket > is really impressive, with a macro stepper and all sorts of bells and > whistles), but I agree with the rationale. :-) > >> Arch Linux provides racket and racket-minimal: the latter is stripped >> from DrRacket: >> >> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=racket > > Such a split sounds good to me. What do Chris and other Racketeers > think? > > Cheers, > Ludo’.
I'm ok with splitting out racket-minimal and racket, which is a common convention these days... even Racket's download page provides "Racket" and "Minimal Racket": https://download.racket-lang.org/ I'd take the least effort route to doing that though... we aren't ready to break each of the Racket "core" packages into their own packages and I don't think that would need to hold this back. - Chris
