Hi Ludo, 

Sorry for the late reply. I'm not really active anymore in Guix
development for various reasons. 

Wine needs a whole 32-bit dependency chain to be able to run both 32-bit
and 64-bit code, since a Wine that can only run 64-bit code is
considered useless. That is why the package is unfortunately so large. I
don't think there's anything that can be done about that. 

A couple of binaries are also copied, not just JSON files. That is where
the 32-bit dependencies come from. 

On 2019-11-23 00:12, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I noticed that 'wine64-staging' is our most expensive package to build.
> Initially I was surprised because it only has a couple of nodes more in
> its <package> object than 'wine-staging':
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ guix graph wine-staging |grep 'label = ' |wc -l
> 509
> ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ guix graph wine64-staging |grep 'label = ' |wc -l
> 511
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> However, that single additional node leads to the duplication of the
> whole derivation graph on x86_64-linux:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ guix graph -t derivation wine-staging |grep 'label = ' |wc -l
> 2738
> ludo@ribbon ~/src/guix$ guix graph -t derivation wine64-staging |grep 'label = ' |wc -l
> 4598
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> This is because 'wine-staging' has a hard-coded '#:system "i686-linux"',
> whereas 'wine64-staging' is (unsurprisingly :-)) built on x86_64-linux.
> 
> (The same problem happens with 'wine' vs. 'wine64'.)
> 
> Likewise, 'guix size wine64' shows that every dependency appears twice
> (one 32-bit, one 64-bit), and thus the total size is twice that of
> 'wine'.
> 
> Rutger, is there something that can be done to avoid this?  Apparently
> only JSON files are copied from 'wine-staging' into 'wine64-staging',
> but maybe they refer to 32-bit shared libraries or something?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ludo'.