Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> writes: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 06:31:24PM +0000, alírio eyng wrote: >> Ludovic Courtès: >> >what about multiple-language packages? I’m thinking of >> >‘c+guile-guile’ and ‘c+siod+python-gimp’. >> the ideal categorization would be one output for each interface. >> so "guile" (scheme), "guile:c", "gimp" (gui), "gimp:c", "gimp:siod", >> "gimp:python", "emacs" (gui), "emacs:tui", "emacs:elisp" (to run >> "emacs -batch -eval"). >> e.g. guile:c and emacs:tui are pretty useless for me, so i could not >> install them. >> it's worth to focus on packages already split: "emacs" (gui+tui+elisp) >> and "emacs:no-gui" (tui+elisp), linux-libre, ... > > I don't think we should split packages up unless there is a pressing > reason to do it. For example, some our packages have a rarely-used > component that uses a lot of disk space or has a very large dependency. > It makes sense to put those in different outputs. > > But if we go too far, nobody will be able to tell which package to > install to accomplish their task.
I agree. I’d like to only split up packages when the effort is justified. >> c nomenclature: >> packages with c interface currently have nothing, "lib" (prefix or >> postfix), "c-", "-c", "4c" or "-headers". >> e.g. "readline" "libunistring" "htslib" "c-ares" "json-c" "icu4c" >> "mesa-headers" "linux-libre-headers". >> and lots of synopses with nothing, "C library for", "C library >> providing", "C library to", "implementation in C" or "written in C". > > Again, unless some package's headers take up a large amount of disk > space, or have some other onerous cost, I don't see a reason to put them > in a separate output. It also isn’t necessarily practical to do so. ~~ Ricardo