From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: On the annoyance of multiple outputs Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:43:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20160625074307.GA1540@solar> References: <20160620102705.GA3648@solar> <877fdk3u59.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]:36837) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGiFK-0000BI-Nh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 03:43:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGiFE-0002Ly-P7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 03:43:17 -0400 Received: from mailrelay6.public.one.com ([91.198.169.200]:52472) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bGiFE-0002Lf-Bl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2016 03:43:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877fdk3u59.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" To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:46:26PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I would suggest instead fixing the remaining issues, which is going to > be way faster than rebuilding everything. Thanks for beating me to it, I was about to have a look :-) > - (outputs '("out" > - "doc")) ;1.8 MiB of HTML > + (outputs '("out" ;library & headers > + "bin" ;depends on Readline (adds 20MiB to the closure) > + "doc")) ;1.8 MiB of HTML > (inputs `(("bzip2" ,bzip2) > ("readline" ,readline) > ("zlib" ,zlib))) > The 20 MiB saved represent 25% of the closure size. To me, it’s > definitely worth it. This is of course a question of taste now; even on my computationally weak machines, I have enough disk space to not bother. My argument was to not look at the relative size, but the absolute savings; 20MB is nothing I would worry about. And moreover I suppose that readline is installed more or less every- where. So what would count is not the closure size of an individual package, but of a profile as a whole; and this is of course not an objective measure any more. > When I look at the output of ‘guix size evince’, for instance, I think > we should split more, not less (935 MiB “just” for Evince!). Skimming over the output, big chunks of this are gtk+, python and mesa, for instance. I suppose that someone wanting to install evince has all of them anyway. More surprising is the reference to gcc. When splitting a package, I would not consider the closure size, but only (except for special cases) the size of the package itself. Andreas