Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: >> I was hoping we could avoid this, but whatever: let’s do this :) > > Yeah, me too. The problem we have is that Guix is hardly releasable in > its current state because on systems with 1GiB of memory you can’t > upgrade, and I think that’s unacceptable.
Yes, I’m feeling the pain with my i686 netbook. > So what are the options? If we get a bug-fix for Guile’s compiler > today, does it help? If we graft it then we can deliver it without > having to wait for a Guile release, which helps a bit? > > I think it’s all about time: we could wait (and hack!) some more, and > solve the root problem. This is the best long-term course of action, > but at the same time it delays the Guix release. The way I see it, having very large modules like (gnu packages python) is not desirable anyway. So we won’t get around distributing package definitions. If we can get a fix for Guile soon that’s great, but we should begin moving packages independent of that. >> For haskell.scm I’d begin by moving the following packages away: >> >> - check.scm: ghc-tasty*, ghc-quickcheck*, ghc-test*, ghc-hunit*, hspec*, >> ghc-hspec*, … >> >> - web.scm: ghc-tagsoup, ghc-cookie, ghc-http*, ghc-wai*, ghc-json, >> ghc-warp*, ghc-multipart, ghc-aeson* >> >> - crypto.scm: ghc-tf-random, ghc-digest, ghc-cryptonite, ghc-x509*, >> ghc-asn1*, ghc-pem, ghc-cryptohash*, ghc-entropy, ghc-crypto-api*, >> ghc-puremd5 >> >> - tls.scm: ghc-tls >> >> Maybe that’s enough already. >> >> Does that seem like a good idea? > > It does. Okay, I’ll get started with splitting haskell.scm. I’ll prepare one patch for each target module. > Actually, we could do similarly for Perl and Python: > python-web, python-check, python-crypto, etc. Okay. I’ll leave that task for someone else, because I don’t think I can do more than haskell.scm today. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net
