Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>> What if, instead, we removed those “canonical” packages entirely from
>> the reference graph? Do you think that’s an option?
>
> It seems to be a better option! So, as I did remove most of the explicit
> references to 'canonical-packages' the only references
Hey Ludo!
> What if, instead, we removed those “canonical” packages entirely from
> the reference graph? Do you think that’s an option?
It seems to be a better option! So, as I did remove most of the explicit
references to 'canonical-packages' the only references left are
implicit.
A good
Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
> With f30d84d32db0f4f6cb84e139868e1727a7dc0a51 and
> dfc8ccbf5da96a67eb1cade499f0def21e7fdb02, I did remove most of the
> "canonical-package" calls because they were breaking system
> cross-compilation.
>
> Now, I'd like to somehow restore them, using the new
Hey Jan,
> Just a quick question: why?; would that reduce a system's closure size?
Yes mostly, even if the gains are not huge (~100MiB). However, I feel
like its easier the tackle the system closure size issue if we get rid
of the "noise".
Thanks,
Mathieu
Mathieu Othacehe writes:
> With f30d84d32db0f4f6cb84e139868e1727a7dc0a51 and
> dfc8ccbf5da96a67eb1cade499f0def21e7fdb02, I did remove most of the
> "canonical-package" calls because they were breaking system
> cross-compilation.
>
> Now, I'd like to somehow restore them
Just a quick question:
Hello,
With f30d84d32db0f4f6cb84e139868e1727a7dc0a51 and
dfc8ccbf5da96a67eb1cade499f0def21e7fdb02, I did remove most of the
"canonical-package" calls because they were breaking system
cross-compilation.
Now, I'd like to somehow restore them, using the new "let-system". My
idea is to define
