> The text looks fine but I find it a bit long and m

Yeah, it  can probably be worked out a bit :p

> more importantly it
> partly duplicates an item that’s just above :-), which mentions ‘guix
> size’ but not ‘texlive’.

Just above?  Do you mean this one:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Take a look at the profile reported by @command{guix size}
(@pxref{Invoking guix size}).  This will allow you to notice references
to other packages unwillingly retained.  It may also help determine
whether to split the package (@pxref{Packages with Multiple Outputs}),
and which optional dependencies should be used.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

True, they should be merged, but in my opinion the existing paragraph is not
explicit enough about the size, despite mentioning the "guix size" command.

> Perhaps a ‘lint’ checker warning about ‘texlive’ as an input would be
> more appropriate?  WDYT?

Maybe, but we should keep in mind that we still don't have a proper texlive
build system, and it can be really hard to build a minimal texlive-union.  So if
someone cannot figure out the minimal union, then the linter will inevitably
flag the package.

> In general I think it’s a good idea to discuss changes to the guidelines
> beforehand, as per ‘HACKING’.

Yup, I went a bit out of my way here, sorry, long and painful day fighting
TeXlive...

Conclusion: I'll just add a mention of TeXlive in the existing paragraph then.

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