[racket-dev] Installing subsets of Racket

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 16 12:34:54 EDT 2013

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.orseau at 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.mccarthy at 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/[email protected]/msg08879.html
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Laurent <laurent.orseau at 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 <jay at 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130916/704b0b29/attachment.html>

Posted on the dev mailing list.