guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

native-inputs: Go for completeness or minimalism?


From: Hartmut Goebel
Subject: native-inputs: Go for completeness or minimalism?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:33:54 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0

Hi,

shall native-inputs be as complete as possible or as minimal as possible?

Background: I just stepped over a couple of packages where upstream requires a lot of code-quality checkers which are not actually run when running the tests. (More specific: These are Python packages demanding tools like flake8, flake8-docstring, black, bandit.)

Now when going for minimal dependencies and minimal native-inputs,

Pro: Less dependencies, simpler dependency tree, thus less computation, faster, less power consumption.

Con: Might need phase to remove dependencies, 'guix shell -D' will not provide every development requirement.

Personally I tend to minimal.

WDYT?

--
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]