Re: Racket packages: formerly Move DrRacket to a separate output?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

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 <address@hidden> 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
>> 
>> 
>>