Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

>> - either move the libs to a "lib" output,
>> - or move the "bin" and "include" folder to a new output.
>>
>> The second approach has the benefit of being less disruptive for dependents.
>
> I have a slight preference for a “lib” output since that’s more in line
> with what we do for other packages.

OK.

> Nice!  I looked for something like this when I packaged
> ‘clang-tools-extra’ and didn’t find it.  This should go into the next
> ‘staging’ branch (or ‘core-updates’?).

I can send a patch for llvm-10, but I guess many llvm-dependents will
have to be updated accordingly.

I suppose that the input

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
("llvm" ,llvm)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

will need to be turned to

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
("llvm" ,llvm "lib")
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

for most packages.  I have no experience with LLVM, so can someone
confirm that this is the right way to go?

>> All in all, it looks like we can save 52 MiB out of 140 MiB from the LLVM
>> package (and 210 MiB from its closure).
>
> That’d be great.

To clarify the ambiguous sentence I wrote above, we would save 52 MiB
from the closure size of LLVM.

> An additional option would be to have a package with fewer backends by
> default (currently all of them are enabled and that takes up quite some
> space).  In particular, Mesa doesn’t depend to depend on an LLVM variant
> with 15 backends when it’s only going to use one.

Are you suggesting an alternative or a tweak to add on top of my
suggestion?

Where would we store the different backends?  In different outputs?
On which backend does Mesa depend for instance?

Cheers!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/