GNU bug report logs - #65550
Don't add propagated-inputs for all outputs

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at 65550 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 65550 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>,
 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#65550: Don't add propagated-inputs for all outputs
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 20:53:55 +0800

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Liliana and 宋文武,
>
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Am Samstag, dem 26.08.2023 um 21:53 +0800 schrieb iyzsong <at> envs.net:
>>> From: 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>
>>>
>>> * guix/profiles.scm (package->manifest-entry): Only include
>>> propagated inputs from a package for its "dev" output, or its "out"
>>> output if the package doesn't have a "dev" one.
>>> ---
>> I think this patch misses the most obvious use case of the out:lib
>> split.  I also think that hardcoding this list is bound to fail.
>>
>> Instead, we could for the time being solve this with yet another
>> package property.
>>   '((propagate-inputs-from "lib")) ; but not out
>>   '((propagate-inputs-from . ("lib"))) ; same meaning, different style
>>   '((propagate-inputs-from "out" "lib")) ; but not doc
>> If the property is missing, we still propagate from all outputs, as is
>> currently done.
>
> [...]
>
> I think we'd need to evaluate what we'd gain in terms of size reduction
> a bit more carefully before moving in this direction and how it'd impact
> the user experience.  E.g., if we can reduce the minimal Guix image size
> by maybe 30%, that'd be nice, but if we're talking of about 5% like in
> your example profile, it doesn't seem worth the complexity to me.

I agree, thanks Maxim and Liliana for the inputs!

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.