Hello, Am 26.10.2017 um 12:42 schrieb Pjotr Prins: > Yes, I think that is what we should head for eventually. I vaguely > remember a discussion about this on this ML and people were against > separate outputs for doc, include, static-lib etc. What are you all > thinking now? Does it make sense to have the base package as small as > possible and split out the rest?
I'm in favor of (automatically?) splitting of "development" packages, including the headers and the static libs (much like the "-devel" or "-dev" packages in other distributions. One does not need them on a production system and they are just wasting space. When Guix needs to build a package, it automatically installs the ":devel" output of all it's inputs. We could do the same for "docs", but "docs" may not be easy to determine, except for man-pages and info-files. Regarding localization-files I'm unsure if for the average package this is worth the effort. But for big packages this could be worth the effort. Maybe we could even make them "noarch" packages, thus savine space and build time. Here is a list of "langpacks" my distribution offers (I used pt_BR since this is easy to search in the package-repo): aspell-pt_BR childsplay-sounds-pt_BR firefox-pt_BR gcompris-sounds-pt_BR gnome-getting-started-docs-pt_BR kde-l10n-handbooks-pt_BR kde-l10n-pt_BR kompozer-myspell-pt_BR kompozer-pt_BR libreoffice-langpack-pt_BR man-pages-pt_BR thunderbird-pt_BR -- Regards Hartmut Goebel | Hartmut Goebel | h.goe...@crazy-compilers.com | | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |