Hi,
Danny Milosavljevic skribis:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 11:51:53 +0100
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> Right. Initially linux.scm was for “kernel + Linux-specific packages”.
>> I think we should change it to have:
>>
>> • linux.scm for the kernel, header, ‘perf’, and little more.
>>
>>
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 11:51:53 +0100
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I support the idea; I’m not entirely sure about the core/ name space but
> that’s a secondary issue.
I support the idea, too.
> It may prove to be tricky though. For example, the set of dependencies
> of GCC has been steadily gro
Ludovic Courtès writes:
>> I’d like to propose a reduction of the modules to a core set. To ensure
>> that they stay small we would move them to the directory
>> gnu/packages/core/. Adding new module references to any of the modules
>> in that directory would only be permitted for very good r
Hello,
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> for the past few days I’ve been trying to reduce the module closure of
> “coreutils” by inspecting the output of
>
> guix graph -t module coreutils
Much appreciated!
For the record, this is important for several reasons: it makes it
easier for (guix self) a
Hi Guix,
for the past few days I’ve been trying to reduce the module closure of
“coreutils” by inspecting the output of
guix graph -t module coreutils
This has shown a number of modules that are much too large and pull in
almost all other modules.
I’d like to propose a reduction of the modu
