Emmanuel Beffara <m...@beffara.org> writes: > I don't understand how "out" and "doc" are different in this respect. The > "out" output of a collection meta-package has no content of its own and it > only serves to gather the "out" outputs of its inputs. Similarly, the "doc" > output would have no content of its own and only gather the "doc" outputs of > its inputs. How is that inconsistent? > > There may be something I misunderstand about how Guix packages work > here.
Outputs are used to split files to be installed after building a package. Since meta-packages do not build anything, there is nothing to install, and therefore, to split. The default output is enough. I imagine it would be possible to bend that concept, and, for example, create a tree of symlinks, pointing to the documentation of the various propagated packages, that would ultimately be moved to a "doc" output. AFAICT, however, no package in Guix does this. Another data point to consider: `texlive-collection-foo' and hypothetical `texlive-collection-foo:doc' would require to propagate two different sets of packages, which may be an argument in favor of creating two different packages in the first place. Please note that I have no strong opinion on that subject anyway. I hope experienced TeX Live users can chime in. >> In any case, I suggest to write a proper bug report for this. Hopefully, >> someone with better understanding about the implications of GUIX_TEXMF >> will be able to solve this. > > I can do that for the texdoc behaviour. Great! Thank you. -- Nicolas Goaziou
