GNU bug report logs - #67473
[PATCH gnome-team 00/12] Hopefully the last world rebuild

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: rg <at> raghavgururajan.name, Vivien Kraus <vivien <at> planete-kraus.eu>, 67473 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#67473] [PATCH gnome-team v2 09/13] gnu: Remove libsoup-minimal.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2023 20:24:27 -0500

Hi,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> 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 <at> 2, so they put libsoup-minimal-2, but then the package
>> required
>> libsoup <at> 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 <at> 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

Previous Next

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