[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 |
- native-inputs: Go for completeness or minimalism?,
Hartmut Goebel <=