Hi, On Mon, 08 Dec 2025 at 12:27, Cayetano Santos <[email protected]> wrote:
> I’m sure there are many other aspects where we can do better. Ideas > about this ? My 2 cents as an experience report when reviewing. Using Guix 25a6fbe, when downloading the requirements for building something, I notice this: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- substituting /gnu/store/702qng4mm6ylq6k25s8pafznw18d7pzc-ldc-1.38.0... downloading from https://ci.guix.gnu.org/nar/lzip/702qng4mm6ylq6k25s8pafznw18d7pzc-ldc-1.38.0 ... ldc-1.38.0 6.7MiB 2.3MiB/s 00:03 ▕██████████████████▏ 100.0% substituting /gnu/store/rh9ycsqadi833mmaakjwsgfq5nncf9kg-ldc-1.38.0... downloading from https://ci.guix.gnu.org/nar/lzip/rh9ycsqadi833mmaakjwsgfq5nncf9kg-ldc-1.38.0 ... ldc-1.38.0 7.9MiB 2.5MiB/s 00:03 ▕██████████████████▏ 100.0% --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Well, ~7MiB is not much but still… Not much after not much, it ends to something. :-) Why twice the same package? Hey, that’s not the same package! $ guix build --no-grafts -e '(@@ (gnu packages dlang) ldc-bootstrap)' /gnu/store/702qng4mm6ylq6k25s8pafznw18d7pzc-ldc-1.38.0 $ guix build --no-grafts -e '(@@ (gnu packages dlang) ldc)' /gnu/store/rh9ycsqadi833mmaakjwsgfq5nncf9kg-ldc-1.38.0 Wait, why is ldc-bootstrap required? $ guix graph --path -L . sharc -e '(@@ (gnu packages dlang) ldc-bootstrap)' [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Well, I’ve not investigated further why the ldc-bootstrap version is retained; I expect to not be and it’s probably a bug. I think we have this kind of bug because we do not care enough about the closure of our packages. Look: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ guix size sambamba store item total self /gnu/store/dy303dc14lz86lligv8af62yq3vvqasm-llvm-17.0.6 635.2 560.6 62.1% /gnu/store/ps63342s4k7yj8dia6bybylkjvsq6d4m-gdc-14.3.0-lib 139.2 98.1 10.9% /gnu/store/702qng4mm6ylq6k25s8pafznw18d7pzc-ldc-1.38.0 803.8 52.8 5.8% /gnu/store/rh9ycsqadi833mmaakjwsgfq5nncf9kg-ldc-1.38.0 899.7 52.2 5.8% /gnu/store/lyk51h6jkdapjkbg0wxfxkjj5fq7aii4-gcc-14.3.0-lib 84.7 43.7 4.8% /gnu/store/yj053cys0724p7vs9kir808x7fivz17m-glibc-2.41 41.0 39.2 4.3% /gnu/store/m2vhzr0dy352cn59sgcklcaykprrr4j6-gcc-14.3.0-lib 74.1 33.1 3.7% /gnu/store/pai3hvsiihllqi03b2198qi5qq9a28ga-coreutils-9.1 90.9 16.7 1.9% /gnu/store/pnid7xl9qin7pz0pmc1l8jlkzly62p6a-sambamba-0.8.2 902.7 2.2 0.2% /gnu/store/98rxpjki5i0ri1n3w7nwf1j4x9qxl2xl-bash-static-5.2.37 1.8 1.8 0.2% /gnu/store/k66i68s5l93n1lgxp29vn2292nsywp1v-bash-minimal-5.2.37 42.1 1.1 0.1% /gnu/store/0065jvpnk1bbsi89v979myb28g4w6iyr-lz4-1.10.0 74.8 0.7 0.1% /gnu/store/a2jnc1avp7jdyp01r9kpp8q1i72kk8g0-zlib-1.3.1 74.4 0.2 0.0% /gnu/store/qvp9pb46k3qnpgb6sx7cjzfpcrkkqgnp-libffi-3.4.6 74.3 0.2 0.0% total: 902.7 MiB --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- 3 compilers of D, 2 GCC and 2 Bash… No blame! Or if one, blame on me since I feel part of bioinformatics team. For the record, the last modification of sambamba is from 3 years ago and of ldc is from 2 years ago. So most of us live a happy life with this non-sober situation. :-) For sure, we need to fix it! However, based on my experience over the past years, even fixed soon, I guess the same situation will pop up again in the near future. Why? Because, although point #8 of “Submitting Patches” [1] explicitly mentions “guix size”, we do not collectively pay enough attention on this topic. Eventually, we only pay attention when it’s about GiB; which makes the point: we do not collectively pay enough attention on this topic. ;-) Maybe a first step would to add a Forgejo action that runs “guix size” on the Pull Request and mark it with a red cross if the closure is bigger than the current one. Cheers, simon 1: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/guix.html#Submitting-Patches
