Racket: Move DrRacket to a separate output?

Racket: Move DrRacket to a separate output?

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 423 bytes --]

Hi there,

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.

Arch Linux provides racket and racket-minimal: the latter is stripped
from DrRacket:

	https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=racket

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: Racket: Move DrRacket to a separate output?

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.

Re: Racket: Move DrRacket to a separate output?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

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

Racket packages: formerly Move DrRacket to a separate output?

[Pjotr Prins]

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
> 
> 
> 

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 <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
>> 
>> 
>> 

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

[Pjotr Prins]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:23:18PM -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> 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! ;)

maybe it is a good fosdem hacking project.

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

[Dimakakos Dimos]

Christopher Lemmer Webber writes:

> 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 could start working on this, starting tomorrow. I will need a bit of
guidance though, shall I open a new thread or use this one?

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

[Gábor Boskovits]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 756 bytes --]

Hello,

Dimakakos Dimos <bendersteed@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. okt. 5.,
Szo 0:57):

>
> Christopher Lemmer Webber writes:
>
> > 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 could start working on this, starting tomorrow. I will need a bit of
> guidance though, shall I open a new thread or use this one?
>
Thanks for taking the initiative here. I would start a new thread, as this
is misleadingly titled right now, and add
please add a summary about the current status, so interested parties can
get involved more easily. Thanks.

Best regards,
g_bor

>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1561 bytes --]

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

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

Gábor Boskovits writes:

> Hello,
>
> Dimakakos Dimos <bendersteed@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. okt. 5.,
> Szo 0:57):
>
>>
>> Christopher Lemmer Webber writes:
>>
>> > 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 could start working on this, starting tomorrow. I will need a bit of
>> guidance though, shall I open a new thread or use this one?
>>
> Thanks for taking the initiative here. I would start a new thread, as this
> is misleadingly titled right now, and add
> please add a summary about the current status, so interested parties can
> get involved more easily. Thanks.

+1!  And please Cc me on it!

I may have a few good example packages to start testing it against and
can provide the (very limited) amount of info I know.

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

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 290 bytes --]

Dimakakos Dimos <bendersteed@gmail.com> writes:

> I could start working on this, starting tomorrow. I will need a bit of
> guidance though, shall I open a new thread or use this one?

That'd be fantastic, thank you so much in advance!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

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

[Dimakakos Dimos]

Thanks for all the motivation everyone, I've started working on it so
I'll start thread later or tomorrow with the progress I've done and any
questions that occur to me.

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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Dimakakos Dimos <bendersteed@gmail.com> skribis:

> Christopher Lemmer Webber writes:
>
>> 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 could start working on this, starting tomorrow. I will need a bit of
> guidance though, shall I open a new thread or use this one?

That’d be great!  You can ask for guidance here and on #guix on
irc.freenode.net (and #racket I guess!).

I guess it should be rather easy.  You can look at the existing
importers in (guix import crate), (guix import pypi), etc.

HTH!

Ludo’.

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

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 152 bytes --]

I've (finally) pushed racket-minimal.
Hooray!

Now to the Racket importer... Anyone?
Dimakakos? :)

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

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

[Dimakakos Dimos]

Pierre Neidhardt writes:

> I've (finally) pushed racket-minimal.
> Hooray!
>
> Now to the Racket importer... Anyone?
> Dimakakos? :)

Nice! It will be very useful. I've put some research into a build system
for racket, and sadly it isn't trivial to match the racket package
system to guix.

There is a lot of state handling in racket specific files, since every
package is indexed by linking the specific folder of a package. Right
now I'm creating these files ad-hoc but it doens't seem the best
approach, since racket is really slow searching for the dependencies in
many folders. At the same time, racket tries sometims to rebuild
packages that are passed as inputs. There are also circular dependencies
and other stuff that need to be ironed out.

I'm also talking with the creator of racket2nix, a similar project for
nix and he had the same problems, so we discussed about working for a
solution for both package managers.

So in conclusion, I don't have a specific roadmap, but I'm still working
on it.

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

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

Dimakakos Dimos writes:

> Pierre Neidhardt writes:
>
>> I've (finally) pushed racket-minimal.
>> Hooray!
>>
>> Now to the Racket importer... Anyone?
>> Dimakakos? :)
>
> Nice! It will be very useful. I've put some research into a build system
> for racket, and sadly it isn't trivial to match the racket package
> system to guix.
>
> There is a lot of state handling in racket specific files, since every
> package is indexed by linking the specific folder of a package. Right
> now I'm creating these files ad-hoc but it doens't seem the best
> approach, since racket is really slow searching for the dependencies in
> many folders. At the same time, racket tries sometims to rebuild
> packages that are passed as inputs. There are also circular dependencies
> and other stuff that need to be ironed out.
>
> I'm also talking with the creator of racket2nix, a similar project for
> nix and he had the same problems, so we discussed about working for a
> solution for both package managers.
>
> So in conclusion, I don't have a specific roadmap, but I'm still working
> on it.

Am I right then that the challenge is less an "importer" from the Racket
package repository and more to do with how Racket actually installs its
package outputs?  Or is it both?

Thanks for your hard work!

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

[Pjotr Prins]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:55:45PM -0500, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> Am I right then that the challenge is less an "importer" from the Racket
> package repository and more to do with how Racket actually installs its
> package outputs?  Or is it both?

At this stage a simple importer and adding packages by hand would work
for me. Recursive imports can be done later. Racket is typically not
as bad as Rust, Go or Javascript in wanting 100+ dependencies.

It would be great if we had a simple builder.

Pj.

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

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 509 bytes --]

At first glance, I don't think the builder would be too hard.

On a related note, installing racket-minimal, then running

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
raco pkg install drracket
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

works except for the package that bind against glib and cannot find it.

So when we make the racket build system, we must ensure the bindings are
properly patched in.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

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

[Pjotr Prins]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:32:35PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> At first glance, I don't think the builder would be too hard.
> 
> On a related note, installing racket-minimal, then running
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> raco pkg install drracket
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> works except for the package that bind against glib and cannot find it.
> 
> So when we make the racket build system, we must ensure the bindings are
> properly patched in.

Pretty cool. Yes, raco works normally.

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

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

Dimakakos Dimos writes:

> Pierre Neidhardt writes:
>
>> I've (finally) pushed racket-minimal.
>> Hooray!
>>
>> Now to the Racket importer... Anyone?
>> Dimakakos? :)
>
> Nice! It will be very useful. I've put some research into a build system
> for racket, and sadly it isn't trivial to match the racket package
> system to guix.
>
> There is a lot of state handling in racket specific files, since every
> package is indexed by linking the specific folder of a package. Right
> now I'm creating these files ad-hoc but it doens't seem the best
> approach, since racket is really slow searching for the dependencies in
> many folders. At the same time, racket tries sometims to rebuild
> packages that are passed as inputs. There are also circular dependencies
> and other stuff that need to be ironed out.
>
> I'm also talking with the creator of racket2nix, a similar project for
> nix and he had the same problems, so we discussed about working for a
> solution for both package managers.
>
> So in conclusion, I don't have a specific roadmap, but I'm still working
> on it.

Would you mind sharing what you have so far?  Even just a complete
braindump of notes or WIP code could be helpful to move this along!

I've started reading some for the docs over at:

  https://docs.racket-lang.org/pkg/index.html

I'm getting an idea of some things but it would be useful to hear what
you and Claes have explored so far!