# Improved Installations from Executables

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/improved-installations-from-executables/1001
**Category:** Internals & Design
**Created:** [December 16, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/improved-installations-from-executables/1001 "2016-12-16T20:45:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ChrisRackauckas](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/chrisrackauckas/32/77_2.png) [@ChrisRackauckas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ChrisRackauckas)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/improved-installations-from-executables/1001/1 "2016-12-16T20:45:58Z")

</div>

Most users are probably installing Julia from the executables instead of building from source. Given that, is it possible for the executables to be a little smarter? For example, what about having them re-build the system image (or have an option to do so in the installation process), or if the `usrimg.jl` is used for a standard library / default packages to compile with the image (as seen here:

[https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/18795#issuecomment-267686103](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/18795#issuecomment-267686103)

), what about having part of the install let a user choose some packages to do this with?

I think these kinds of improvements would go a long way to helping make sure Julia is tuned to the computers its installed on. I would also like to see executables which include a Juno installation come back (I remember that used to exist with JunoLT?), but that’s another issue.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/improved-installations-from-executables/1001)._