Racket packages: formerly Move DrRacket to a separate output?

[Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl>]

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 <mail@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
> 
> 
>