unofficial mirror of guix-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* native-inputs: Go for completeness or minimalism?
@ 2022-07-20  8:33 Hartmut Goebel
  2022-07-20  9:03 ` Maxime Devos
  2022-07-21 16:34 ` zimoun
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Hartmut Goebel @ 2022-07-20  8:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guix-devel

Hi,

shall native-inputs be as complete as possible or as minimal as possible?

Background: I just stepped over a couple of packages where upstream 
requires a lot of code-quality checkers which are not actually run when 
running the tests. (More specific: These are Python packages demanding 
tools like flake8, flake8-docstring, black, bandit.)

Now when going for minimal dependencies and minimal native-inputs,

Pro: Less dependencies, simpler dependency tree, thus less computation, 
faster, less power consumption.

Con: Might need phase to remove dependencies, 'guix shell -D' will not 
provide every development requirement.

Personally I tend to minimal.

WDYT?

-- 
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-07-21 16:56 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-07-20  8:33 native-inputs: Go for completeness or minimalism? Hartmut Goebel
2022-07-20  9:03 ` Maxime Devos
2022-07-21 16:34 ` zimoun

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).