Dave Love <f...@gnu.org> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >>> It looks to me as if it would often help significantly, e.g. when a >>> pkg-config file, or something else sucks in a load of stuff that's >>> irrelevant for running the package. (Separating :lib and needing that >>> for building means you need to know something about the packaging rather >>> than just using "devel", say.) >> >> Right, good point. >> >> The nice thing with “lib” and “doc” is that it has a direct mapping to >> the GNU directory classification (libdir, docdir, etc.) > > Sure, though there's typically a distinction between lib and, say, > lib64,
I’m talking about the classification, not about specific choices like lib vs. lib64. >> Now, we could depart from it and go with “devel”, for the reasons you >> give. Let’s experiment and see how it goes! > > Good to hear as an experimentalist! :-) > I wonder how much practical experience people have with conventional > packaging and the resulting trades-off, e.g. as Debian, Fedora, > etc. maintainers. I think it helps to understand that reasonably well. > I'm happy to explain to the extent I can if it helps. I'm more familiar > with Fedora, but then Debian is usually easier. I think your expertise is most welcome here. Not everything will have a direct mapping to Guix, but surely we can build upon the experience of other distros. For information on what Nixpkgs does with some of its packages, see also: https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#chap-multiple-output AFAIK this remains an opt-in mechanism, pretty much like in Guix. Their early experience can be read here: https://nixos.org/nix-dev/2016-April/020154.html Ludo’.
