On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 09:15:37AM +0100, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > On 05/02/2018 08:34, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > >compiled yet). Or generate a meta list for a source tree. Or > >subcategorize packages so only those packages get included that are > >asked for (assuming there are no deeper dependencies). For example, > >few people need the bioinformatics packages. We could have the sub > >section of the graph split out and have people do: > > > > guix package --topic=bio -i samtools > > Or move special-topic packages to separate channels, once they get > implemented. The hard part is of course *where* to split the graph, > not how to implement it.
Channels are coming. I agree that bioinformatics could become a channel - that is what bioconda does for Conda. But for other sections of the graph (say Ruby) we better not split out to channels. That is why I am bringing this up as an in-trunk solution. > >Sectioning the graph may be hard (you'd be inclined to section off > >languages and window managers), but I think it can be dictated by > >whether a sub graph can live on its own. > I wonder if anyone has analyzed the dependency graphs of software > packages (not necessarily for Guix, some big distribution like > Debian would be more interesting), with the goal if identifying good > splits based on simple criteria. Yeah, that would be a neat exercise. Any student here inclined to have a go? Pj.
