Subject: Re: [PATCH gnome-team v2 09/13] gnu: Remove libsoup-minimal.

From: Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2023 20:24:27 -0500

Hi,

Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, dem 29.11.2023 um 07:25 +0100 schrieb Vivien Kraus:
>> Le mercredi 29 novembre 2023 à 06:21 +0100, Liliana Marie Prikler a
>> écrit :
>> > Still, there were
>> > other users of libsoup-minimal over libsoup, so we might want to
>> > keep
>> > the variable even as we update both to a new, shared version.
>> I’m tempted to say the users of libsoup-minimal used to depend on
>> libsoup@2, so they put libsoup-minimal-2, but then the package
>> required
>> libsoup@3, and they just removed the "-2" suffix. Is there another
>> reason packages would want a doc-less version of libsoup?
> Closure size?
>
>> I can make another series revision where libsoup-minimal is a
>> deprecated-package pointing to libsoup, or a doc-less libsoup@3. I
>> think the deprecated-package solution is the most useful. What do you
>> think?
> I'd really like a second opinion here.  All I can say is that I don't
> really trust my own gut feeling here.

It appears libsoup and libsoup-minimal closures differs in size by only
little (100 KiB).  So unless there is a requirement here to avoid cycles
(which if there are, would be easy to spot: byte compiling guix would
not complete and bust memory), it could be removed.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim