From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: Installing headers to a separate output? Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:05:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20160225230533.3f4a69db@debian-netbook> References: <87lh68fs4p.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/51yC/7+L17o8P48.T0YjGun"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35701) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ36Z-0000Lh-BX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:05:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ36U-00024Z-OR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:05:47 -0500 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:51387) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZ36U-00024O-HK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 16:05:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87lh68fs4p.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --Sig_/51yC/7+L17o8P48.T0YjGun Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:32:22 +0100 Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Hi Guix, >=20 > should we install headers to separate outputs as we do it in some cases > for really large documentation? It seems wrong to me to download > substitutes for libraries when at build time only certain headers are > needed. >=20 > Other distributions have separate =E2=80=9C*-devel=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9C*= -dev=E2=80=9D packages (and I=E2=80=99m > ambivalent about this) =E2=80=94 would it be a bad idea if we provided = =E2=80=9Cdevel=E2=80=9D > or =E2=80=9Cdev=E2=80=9D *outputs* so that users had more control over wh= at ends up in > their store? >=20 > I=E2=80=99m not writing this because I=E2=80=99m annoyed by the current b= ehaviour =E2=80=94 I=E2=80=99m > just curious. >=20 > ~~ Ricardo I thought a bit about it before and I don't really think it'll save that mu= ch space. Most of the time the headers are a small part of the total package, and the fine-tuning that comes with chosing exactly which outputs from a build process you actually want seem like they should be left as encouragement for people to hack their systems. --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --Sig_/51yC/7+L17o8P48.T0YjGun Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWz2ydAAoJEPTB05F+rO6TeY4P/1i3a6oFkG+md8bAAKETtXrC WogqEmROmMLc5k3vKwheBIqG1rq631mi/hK/arddIQQSNG3IUgiJjWYm9WwbrJPo +UaGY8kcdyKWMkDzuPUXjuWYVpxrZWgM7E7M51Sf3vdpAvi6V1v8sfZVP1ZXONg4 92+oeKuEPjBIsouwWsGC0kbSO+11iJFfT/knQP6++EgeWf2CgO6jCSK5idQlTcNV 7zT7pWais3WQ/EN5QXtQSJBsoW1lzVv07vf17E7XhFExqxddJzPR2u37y0dzIMSm 0931WWG7pmbAQNMyTyeQGIWV0Z1IXFH2yOPEXVt9izmGh8hQFnT3XlvFgig6xueM rsSO9P/x/86J2urV6DdvMv18TKuTBOPxgRQ7sMub/szwZyZPstcgudz+INZZ5n+e FN1oVbwhVg7U1JeYWMp7nwFwjl2HA+0FEuy2VKdeLMcHK7SisR9DSaifnTeBGoPt WvFh0SFpiBDU+tnQ0oGp8bWmldW7VUFJziZkP+FGx7q/1A4geUtndYYzUcnK660P GhSlbBZv5indFD5t8d9Kk2/J7XIsre5uE0OhFzG3XcKDirFZeRLAJYwDUZKmisTA 9J3Hd1eqeARmVu3guIDS1Ipz6YHfHEyB/abSbY557gzKtbzxDD9//VsPPq+ywTDs PcbIAf6RiPR/YKvoKdPI =KN46 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/51yC/7+L17o8P48.T0YjGun--