I think nobody has written a Racket importer. I have it as a longstanding background TODO task but clearly haven't found the time... despite the fact that I desperately want the feature.
I'm just desperate for a lot of things right now! ;) - Chris Pjotr Prins writes: > What is the status of creating Racket packages. For a REST API server > I have two dependencies: > > : raco pkg install https://github.com/dmac/spin.git > : raco pkg install https://github.com/BourgondAries/memo.git > > what is the recommended way of packaging them in GNU Guix? > > Pj. > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 01:44:37PM -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote: >> Ludovic Courtès writes: >> >> > Hello Pierre, >> > >> > Pierre Neidhardt <m...@ambrevar.xyz> 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 >> >> >>
