Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > Gábor Boskovits schreef op di 31-05-2022 om 06:54 [+0200]: >> I was thinking about a bit of a different structure that can also be >> automated. My original idea was to use the already existing tree >> structure of the derivations, and split it based on depth. I think >> that gives a bit more structure, but might require splitting things >> that now are together (for example iirc sometimes we are defining >> bootstrap packages inheriting from the fully fledged ones, which >> introduces a syntactic dependency on something that is higher up the >> tree). Wdyt? > > The package modules could be split and reorganised a bit to roughly > follow the derivation DAG, if that's what you mean (*)? Then the "guix" > package would depend on less -> compute-guix-derivation etc has less to > do, also good for lowering "guix $do_something" memory footprint. This seems like a thing we’d have to do repeatedly as module cycles can appear due to seemingly innocent package upgrades. I get the appeal of untangling the module graph, but I suspect it will turn out to be a lot of busywork leading to repeated disruption (because packages keep moving to different modules, breaking third party channels for no good reason) for little gain. I do hope we can reduce the amount of work that compute-guix-derivation has to perform, even if it causes some disruption once. -- Ricardo
