From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Installing headers to a separate output? Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:33:11 +0100 Message-ID: <87lh66e6bs.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87lh68fs4p.fsf@elephly.net> <20160225230533.3f4a69db@debian-netbook> <87d1rjys0v.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]:43192) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZd7m-0000cA-Ln for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:33:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZd7l-0004aj-KO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 06:33:26 -0500 In-reply-to: <87d1rjys0v.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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ludovic Courtès writes: > Efraim Flashner skribis: > >> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:32:22 +0100 >> Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> >>> Hi Guix, >>> >>> should we install headers to separate outputs as we do it in some cases >>> for really large documentation? It seems wrong to me to download >>> substitutes for libraries when at build time only certain headers are >>> needed. >>> >>> Other distributions have separate “*-devel” or “*-dev” packages (and I’m >>> ambivalent about this) — would it be a bad idea if we provided “devel” >>> or “dev” *outputs* so that users had more control over what ends up in >>> their store? >>> >>> I’m not writing this because I’m annoyed by the current behaviour — I’m >>> just curious. >>> >>> ~~ Ricardo >> >> I thought a bit about it before and I don't really think it'll save that much >> space. Most of the time the headers are a small part of the total package, >> and the fine-tuning that comes with chosing exactly which outputs from a >> build process you actually want seem like they should be left as >> encouragement for people to hack their systems. > > Seconded. We can add a separate “include” output (there’s already a > special case for that in gnu-build-system) on a case-by-case basis, like > we do for documentation, but in practice, I’ve never seen a case where > moving headers away would be a significant space saving. Thank you all for your comments. I agree that it makes sense to do this on a case-by-case basis only. Curiosity: satisfied :) ~~ Ricardo