[racket-dev] should package "X" imply package "X-test"?

I agree. I think the normal case is just that there's a package "X",
and it's only when clients of "X" request finer-grained distribution
that it's worth doing anything --- like the request that made Neil T.
split "math".

The "tiny" mode you describe sounds like binary mode, and there are
indeed "info.rkt" fields to control what is included and excluded when
a package is pruned to binary form.

At Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:30:27 -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> I'm speaking of third-party packages only; I don't know about the 
> packages that make up core Racket.  (But perhaps whatever is done for 
> any special needs of core Racket can avoid complicating things for 
> third-party packages.)
> 
> For third-party packages, for the audience of technical users of Racket, 
> I think that getting documentation, source code, and tests by default is 
> a good thing.  Not only do technical users often want those things, but 
> IMHO we should be encouraging people to use those things.  This could be 
> the simple case.
> 
> For use or installation of third-party packages on very small devices, 
> such as on an OpenWRT router, or for packaging shrinkwrap apps, maybe 
> there should be a directive in "info.rkt" for what files can be excluded 
> in ``tiny'' installations, in addition to not including docs.  This 
> seems like an unusual case, but seems like there is a simple solution, 
> while also keeping the usual case simple.
> 
> For third-party package authors who want to avoid some big dependency in 
> the tests (e.g., huge data set, or dependencies on some other packages), 
> maybe the solution is the same as ``tiny'' above, maybe they need to 
> separate out some of their tests into a separate package, or maybe the 
> dependency is not all that necessary.  This too seems like an unusual 
> case to me, although I do have one package myself that kinda runs into 
> it (non-small test files in 
> "http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket-mediafile/").  Again, it seems to me 
> like the solution for this unusual case is simple and keeps the usual 
> case simple.
> 
> Neil V.
> 
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev