Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes: >> - either move the libs to a "lib" output, >> - or move the "bin" and "include" folder to a new output. >> >> The second approach has the benefit of being less disruptive for dependents. > > I have a slight preference for a “lib” output since that’s more in line > with what we do for other packages.
OK.
> Nice! I looked for something like this when I packaged
> ‘clang-tools-extra’ and didn’t find it. This should go into the next
> ‘staging’ branch (or ‘core-updates’?).
I can send a patch for llvm-10, but I guess many llvm-dependents will
have to be updated accordingly.
I suppose that the input
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
("llvm" ,llvm)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
will need to be turned to
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
("llvm" ,llvm "lib")
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
for most packages. I have no experience with LLVM, so can someone
confirm that this is the right way to go?
>> All in all, it looks like we can save 52 MiB out of 140 MiB from the LLVM
>> package (and 210 MiB from its closure).
>
> That’d be great.
To clarify the ambiguous sentence I wrote above, we would save 52 MiB
from the closure size of LLVM.
> An additional option would be to have a package with fewer backends by
> default (currently all of them are enabled and that takes up quite some
> space). In particular, Mesa doesn’t depend to depend on an LLVM variant
> with 15 backends when it’s only going to use one.
Are you suggesting an alternative or a tweak to add on top of my
suggestion?
Where would we store the different backends? In different outputs?
On which backend does Mesa depend for instance?
Cheers!
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
