I think some of this I just answered
here: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/18389 . Here's a quote:
I think a good way to go forward is to start making some metapackages held
> by the Julia orgs. For example, FFT could move out of Base into JuliaMath,
> and there can be a standard
Hi Everyone,
There are many comments with which I agree. Chris has put forward many good
ideas, I also use Java and find the install/upgrade system excellent. There
is no problem with having lots of APIs in the distribution since they are
not loaded into you code unless specifically required.
2016-09-15 0:10 GMT+02:00 Chris Rackauckas:
> If you use Reexport.jl's @reexport in the top-scope of a module for such a
> metapackage it will actually export all of the functions from inside:
>
> module MyMetapackage # Setup t
> using Reexport
> @reexport using DifferentialEquations
>
If you use Reexport.jl's @reexport in the top-scope of a module for such a
metapackage it will actually export all of the functions from inside:
module MyMetapackage # Setup t
using Reexport
@reexport using DifferentialEquations
@reexport using Plots
end
using MyMetapackage # Imports
2016-09-14 23:46 GMT+02:00 Chris Rackauckas:
> I too am weary about how different distributions would play together. I'd
> assume you'd just install with one and that would be it.
There are many people working in many fields that may want to install
different distributions. I don't think that
I didn't think about using metapackages instead to do "distributions" (with
Reexport.jl to make using Metapackage import all of the packages). That
seems like an interesting idea.
I too am weary about how different distributions would play together. I'd
assume you'd just install with one and
One could imagine a metapackage where
using StandardLibrary
imports all the goodies (as Gabriel put it), and that wouldn't be too
painful. Would it be possible to have it the other way around though, where
all the goodies are imported unless you do something else like
exclude StandardLibrary
Hi Chris,
what would be the difference between a distribution and a meta-package like
those used, for example, in Debian and derivatives: a package without code,
that only requires other packages? In this sense you can create right now
a meta-package: just create a repository for a Julia
for me a distribution is more than just a gobbled together bunch of
disparate packages: ideally it should have a common style and work with
common datastructures for input/ouput (between methods) to exchange data.
That's the real crux of the problem, not the fact that you need to manually
"Also, there's a good reason to ask "why fuss with distributions when
anyone could just add the packages and add the import statements to their
.juliarc?" (though its target audience is for people who don't know details
like the .juliarc, but also want Julia to work seamlessly like MATLAB)."
I
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:39:15 AM UTC, Chris Rackauckas wrote:
>
>
> This could be a terrible idea, I don't know.
>
I don't think so.
In the download page there is already a choice of (two extra.. when
JuliaBox is thought of as such) "distributions", if you will:
"We provide
What about sysimage for these pkgs out of base?
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:39:15 AM UTC-4, Chris Rackauckas wrote:
>
> I think one major point of contention when talking about what should be
> included in Base due to competing factors:
>
>
>1. Some people would like a "lean Base"
I' m in favor of this. In fact I asked for the same thing
in https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-users/3g8zXaXfQqk although
in a more cryptic way :)
BTW: java already has something like this: next to the 2 big standard
distributions javaSE & javaEE (there's also a third specialized
13 matches
Mail list logo
