Re: compiling guix is too slow?

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

ng0 <ng0@infotropique.org> writes:

> I'd say we split up:
>
> 2.0 MiB and bigger:
> python         (3.7 MiB go)
> perl           (2.3 MiB go)
> haskell        (2.1 MiB go)
> bioinformatics (2.0 MiB go)

Modules named after languages would probably benefit from splitting
them.  A *lot* of software is written in those languages, and we ought
to move packages to where they make sense (e.g. web, documentation,
admin, etc).

I disagree on splitting up “bioinformatics”; it’s already a “topic
module”.  It would be hard to split by field (e.g. “RNA-seq”), because
many tools cover a wide range.  I’m against some arbitrary split, which
would give us something silly like “(gnu packages bioinformatics a)”,
“(gnu packages bioinformatics b)”, etc.

> And those we can consider to split up as they are bigger than 1MiB
> and smaller than 2MiB:
> statistics     (1.4 MiB go)
> gnome          (1.4 MiB go)
> xorg           (1.3 MiB go)
> emacs          (1.2 MiB go)
> web            (1.2 MiB go)
> ruby           (1.1 MiB go)

The only module I’d split from this list is “ruby” (for the same reasons
as above).  “statistics” will change as soon as we get started with the
much bigger “cran” module — but that’s going to cause more problems, not
solve them :)

Anyway, Andy has already identified a problem with the compilation, so
I’d defer any work on these other modules.  Independent of how this
goes, however, (gnu packages python) ought to be split up.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net