From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: Guix size reduction work group Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 16:18:16 +0100 Message-ID: <87blqdnjuv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87pneul50i.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39160) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1izMRX-0008Hv-HG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 10:18:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87pneul50i.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> (Pierre Neidhardt's message of "Tue, 04 Feb 2020 16:57:17 +0100") 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Pierre Neidhardt Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi! Pierre Neidhardt skribis: > Shall we start a work group to fix the issue? > > - Write a blog article to explain the issue and a detailed process on > how to fix it. (Embed it to the manual.) The =E2=80=9CSubmitting Patches=E2=80=9D section mentions closure size spec= ifically. Is there anything you think we should add there? > - Improve the tooling. In my experience, guix graph is quickly unusable > with a high number of nodes. Maybe d3.js could be leveraged to add a > filtering system, or a way to click on nodes to hide them and all > their children. =E2=80=98guix size=E2=80=99 is key here: it=E2=80=99s a profiler, exactly w= hat we need IMO. WDYT? > - How do we compare to Nix? A few years back we were doing better because we used separate outputs in key places where Nixpkgs didn=E2=80=99t. Later on Nixpkgs had a large p= art of its packages split in several outputs (more than we do). From what I heard, it wasn=E2=80=99t as fruitful as they had hoped it would be in terms= of closure size, but it might still be better than what we have, dunno. The thing is, I think it=E2=80=99s something that requires constant care, e= very time we add a package or modify an existing one. It=E2=80=99s very easy to= lose benefits that had been previously obtained through hard work! At any rate, I agree we need to improve! Ludo=E2=80=99.