Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 1.6K bytes: > > ng0 <n...@infotropique.org> writes: > > > I'd say we split up: > > > > 2.0 MiB and bigger: > > python (3.7 MiB go) > > perl (2.3 MiB go) > > haskell (2.1 MiB go) > > bioinformatics (2.0 MiB go) > > Modules named after languages would probably benefit from splitting > them. A *lot* of software is written in those languages, and we ought > to move packages to where they make sense (e.g. web, documentation, > admin, etc). > > I disagree on splitting up “bioinformatics”; it’s already a “topic > module”. It would be hard to split by field (e.g. “RNA-seq”), because > many tools cover a wide range. I’m against some arbitrary split, which > would give us something silly like “(gnu packages bioinformatics a)”, > “(gnu packages bioinformatics b)”, etc. > > > And those we can consider to split up as they are bigger than 1MiB > > and smaller than 2MiB: > > statistics (1.4 MiB go) > > gnome (1.4 MiB go) > > xorg (1.3 MiB go) > > emacs (1.2 MiB go) > > web (1.2 MiB go) > > ruby (1.1 MiB go) > > The only module I’d split from this list is “ruby” (for the same reasons > as above). “statistics” will change as soon as we get started with the > much bigger “cran” module — but that’s going to cause more problems, not > solve them :) > > Anyway, Andy has already identified a problem with the compilation, so > I’d defer any work on these other modules. Independent of how this > goes, however, (gnu packages python) ought to be split up. > > -- > Ricardo > > GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC > https://elephly.net
Okay. I would like to be able to run guix pull on servers with 512 MB RAM again, any way this happens at some point is okay for me. If it is only splitting up python plus solving the problem with compilation, that's okay. -- ng0 GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature