From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hartmut Goebel Subject: Re: Specifying and build output separately? Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:06:14 +0200 Message-ID: <58049486.2080400@crazy-compilers.com> References: <118ccdd8-3b7f-2b35-5f5e-69375c1a4565@crazy-compilers.com> <87y41ne4mj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42117) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bw3sD-0000y3-Vs for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 05:06:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bw3s9-0000KI-RL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 05:06:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87y41ne4mj.fsf@gnu.org> 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" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= Cc: Guix-devel Am 17.10.2016 um 10:55 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > I prefer this approach over what you propose because it’s more > consistent with what we usually do, which is to have doc in a “doc” > output rather than in a separate package. Yes, but it has the major drawback of building numpy twice - which is quite time-consuming. If we could "augment" the existing bootstrap package, for the normal one, this would save the second build. -- Regards Hartmut Goebel | Hartmut Goebel | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com | | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |