From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Proposal: Prefix language-name for language library packages Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 09:50:43 +0200 Message-ID: <877ffcgap8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160429233632.GA13525@jasmine> <87oa8rwqhc.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ax8db-0006bZ-6u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2016 03:51:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ax8dP-0007D0-GV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 02 May 2016 03:51:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87oa8rwqhc.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Sat, 30 Apr 2016 08:38:39 +0200") 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?al?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=ADrio?= eyng Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Leo Famulari writes: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 06:31:24PM +0000, al=C3=ADrio eyng wrote: >>> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s: >>> >what about multiple-language packages? I=E2=80=99m thinking of >>> >=E2=80=98c+guile-guile=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98c+siod+python-gimp=E2=80= =99. >>> the ideal categorization would be one output for each interface. >>> so "guile" (scheme), "guile:c", "gimp" (gui), "gimp:c", "gimp:siod", >>> "gimp:python", "emacs" (gui), "emacs:tui", "emacs:elisp" (to run >>> "emacs -batch -eval"). >>> e.g. guile:c and emacs:tui are pretty useless for me, so i could not >>> install them. >>> it's worth to focus on packages already split: "emacs" (gui+tui+elisp) >>> and "emacs:no-gui" (tui+elisp), linux-libre, ... >> >> I don't think we should split packages up unless there is a pressing >> reason to do it. For example, some our packages have a rarely-used >> component that uses a lot of disk space or has a very large dependency. >> It makes sense to put those in different outputs. >> >> But if we go too far, nobody will be able to tell which package to >> install to accomplish their task. > > I agree. I=E2=80=99d like to only split up packages when the effort is > justified. Agreed. FWIW, until recently Nixpkgs didn=E2=80=99t use multiple outputs much (info "(guix) Packages with Multiple Outputs"). Lately they merged a change to use them very aggressively. So for instance, GNU=C2=A0libidn, which tak= es 800=C2=A0KiB in total, has no less than 5 outputs: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/development/libraries/l= ibidn/default.nix I think this is going a bit too far. :-) I think the approach should be to profile packages with =E2=80=98guix size= =E2=80=99 and to act mostly on a case-by-case basis. Ludo=E2=80=99.