Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> skribis: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:32:22 +0100 > Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > >> Hi Guix, >> >> should we install headers to separate outputs as we do it in some cases >> for really large documentation? It seems wrong to me to download >> substitutes for libraries when at build time only certain headers are >> needed. >> >> Other distributions have separate “*-devel” or “*-dev” packages (and I’m >> ambivalent about this) — would it be a bad idea if we provided “devel” >> or “dev” *outputs* so that users had more control over what ends up in >> their store? >> >> I’m not writing this because I’m annoyed by the current behaviour — I’m >> just curious. >> >> ~~ Ricardo > > I thought a bit about it before and I don't really think it'll save that much > space. Most of the time the headers are a small part of the total package, > and the fine-tuning that comes with chosing exactly which outputs from a > build process you actually want seem like they should be left as > encouragement for people to hack their systems.
Seconded. We can add a separate “include” output (there’s already a special case for that in gnu-build-system) on a case-by-case basis, like we do for documentation, but in practice, I’ve never seen a case where moving headers away would be a significant space saving. IOW, it’d be a micro-optimization; there are other things we could do before that to save space. Ludo’.
