From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: pull: Compile .scm files in one process. Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 16:54:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87si3j8r3j.fsf@T420.taylan> References: <87si4kxtge.fsf@T420.taylan> <87611gdul8.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9kzy09b.fsf@T420.taylan> <87bnb6c0nh.fsf@gnu.org> <874mgyxhgy.fsf@T420.taylan> <877flpohu6.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvuku444.fsf@T420.taylan> <87pozgfyzt.fsf@gnu.org> <87io57tt2s.fsf@T420.taylan> <876117mnef.fsf@igalia.com> <87egfvtnbw.fsf@T420.taylan> <87y4e3l7hm.fsf@igalia.com> <87a8qjtje8.fsf@T420.taylan> <876117t0ax.fsf@gnu.org> <877flmrn2m.fsf@T420.taylan> <87a8q0ies5.fsf@gnu.org> <87fuzrlt6f.fsf@T420.taylan> <87bnafbvrs.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnaflbg2.fsf@T420.taylan> <87k2ovd02r.fsf@netris.org> 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]:53509) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4WCg-0004KJ-TS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:53:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4WCf-0007Pe-Ur for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:53:54 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87k2ovd02r.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Thu, 03 Dec 2015 10:27:24 -0500") 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: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Mark H Weaver writes: > taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") writes: > >> It would be great if the whole circular import problem could somehow be >> solved by Guile (no idea how feasible it is). > > I think we should eliminate circular module dependencies. They cause > nasty problems, and there's no compelling reason that we need them, > since our package dependency graph is necessarily a DAG. > > We can eliminate the circular dependencies by breaking up our package > modules into smaller pieces. One package per module would trivially > accomplish this, although I guess that's going too far. > > We might want to think about what tools could help us discover a much > smaller number of package splittings that would eliminate the cycles, > and to ensure that they would never again be introduced. There might also be non-package module cycles, or more likely, cycles involving package and non-package modules. I think I encountered the latter while sniffing around, though I don't remember exactly. These might be less trivial to fix... Just an FYI. Otherwise +1. I don't know when my productivity will go back up (health issues), but when it does and nobody's done it yet I might work on such a tool for package modules. If anyone else wants to then don't hold back though. Taylan