Re: Racket: Move DrRacket to a separate output?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>]

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