Preferring packages with smaller closures as package inputs (Was: Packages grow, no longer fit on a 💾)

Preferring packages with smaller closures as package inputs (Was: Packages grow, no longer fit on a 💾)

[Adam Faiz]

> Hello!
> 
> Over the course of a few years, the size of our packages has apparently
> kept growing.  Example:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Should packages with smaller closures be preferred as package inputs, in 
the case that multiple packages implement the same interface?

For example, pkgconf is much simpler compared to pkg-config but 
implements the same interface. Should it be used as an input for all 
packages that need pkg-config, through a pkg-config symlink in the 
pkgconf package for complete compatibility? If not, why? Are there more 
important factors to consider than bootstrapping complexity?

In contrast, pkg-config has glib as a bundled dependency when it should 
be unbundled. There's probably a circular dependency that needs to be 
resolved but it needs to be done.