Hi Jakub, I could see splitting the static output being useful but I would rather wait until some evidence that the closure size would be too large. Also I’m not sure propagation is necessary for dependents to find libraries or use paths from an input.
Thoughts? John On Aug 7, 2020, at 8:04 AM, Jakub Kądziołka <k...@kadziolka.net> wrote: On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to > statically link packages we need to add all the “static” outputs of all > Haskell inputs *and* the “static” outputs of *their* Haskell inputs. > This is not easily accomplished, so I ended up using “package-closure” > on all direct inputs, and then filtered the result to packages with > names starting with “ghc-”. If there was a more appropriate tool I’d > use it, but I don’t think it exists. Perhaps we should work on making propagated-inputs per-output? That way, :static could propagate the :static output of the dependencies. This would also be useful in other situations. For example, a package might contain both a binary and a library, and the library must propagate its dependencies to make the header files work. I don't know what a good syntax for this would be. Thoughts? Regards, Jakub Kądziołka
