Hello, Am Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 06:54:35PM +0200 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou: > Emmanuel Beffara <m...@beffara.org> writes: > > I don't understand how "out" and "doc" are different in this respect. The > > "out" output of a collection meta-package has no content of its own and it > > only serves to gather the "out" outputs of its inputs. Similarly, the "doc" > > output would have no content of its own and only gather the "doc" outputs of > > its inputs. How is that inconsistent? > > > Outputs are used to split files to be installed after building > a package. Since meta-packages do not build anything, there is nothing > to install, and therefore, to split. The default output is enough.
if I understand things correctly, we would like the following behaviour for propagated inputs in the texlive context: We have these metapackages with propagated inputs; all of these inputs have "out" and "doc". Then we would like to automatically create "out" and "doc" for the metapackage, into which the corresponding "out" and "doc" of their "ingredients" are propagated. Well, more precisely, the metapackages are empty, so it is a bit fuzzy what I mean by "into which" above. We would like the following: - If a user installs metapackage:out, they get all the ingredient:out in their profile. - If a user installs metapackage:doc, they get all the ingredient:doc in their profile. I am quite certain this is not how propagated inputs work, and I do not know whether their behaviour could be changed in this way. The documentation is a bit unclear: https://guix.gnu.org/de/manual/devel/en/guix.html#package_002dpropagated_002dinputs "propagated-inputs is similar to inputs, but the specified packages will be automatically installed to profiles" What is a "package" in this context? I think it means all outputs of a package. But then we should already have all the documentation with the metapackages, right? And indeed, when installing texlive-scheme-medium into my profile, I have lots of downloads such as texlive-tex-ini-files-66594 3KiB 452KiB/s 00:00 ▕██████████████████▏ 100.0% texlive-tex-ini-files-66594-doc 1KiB 257KiB/s 00:00 ▕██████████████████▏ 100.0% (every package twice with its -doc). So as a first observation, separating the doc output serves no purpose: it will be downloaded anyway, and actually forms the bulk of the whole texmf-dist. The above package is not typical in this respect, here is another one: texlive-upmendex-66594 77B 33KiB/s 00:00 ▕██████████████████▏ 100.0% texlive-upmendex-66594-doc 945KiB 2.0MiB/s 00:00 ▕██████████████████▏ 100.0% But strangely, $HOME/.guix-profile/share/texmf-dist/doc is just a pointer to /gnu/store/a184f1m1mbwkccxyi86dn4mdamay6lw5-texlive-bin-20230313/share/texmf-dist/doc However, the doc output of texlive-tex-ini-files has a share/temxf-dist/doc with a subdirectory generic/, which thus does not appear in the profile. See also https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65550 I do not really understand what is happening. All outputs are downloaded, but only the out outputs are propagated? If this is true, then I think it would make sense to not split into two outputs, but to always include the documentation in the texlive packages. Andreas PS: Something else that is strange: I end up with $HOME/.guix-profile/share/texmf (without the -dist suffix) that points to /gnu/store/lzq5fd5b2l3341s0da5a1vzhxc1li3yb-asymptote-2.86/share/texmf
