Hi, Andreas Enge <[email protected]> skribis:
> Am Sat, May 23, 2026 at 10:10:05PM +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: >> We could choose to change (inputs (list gmp)) to mean: all the outputs >> of ‘gmp’ are inputs (I believe this is what Nixpkgs ended up doing). > > But then we would lose the advantage of different outputs, no? Yes and no. It would lead to an unnecessary increase in the number of outputs that need to be present when building a package, but wouldn’t lead to an increase in closure size (the “references” of the build result would usually be the same). I’m not saying this is something we should do, just mentioning it as a possible option. I guess the main advantage of this is that packagers don’t need to be aware of the set of outputs of a given package; it’s more coarse-grain but less hassle. At any rate, it’s worth looking at what outputs Nixpkgs settled on (I think it was a few years back). One insight that I remember is that they went for “dev” rather than “lib” + “out” (what we have). Ludo’.
