Hi Andres, Apologies for the poor communication.
On 2026-01-02 12:48:34, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2026-01-02 12:43:34 -0600, Benjamin Leff wrote: > > For our use case installing a subset of the tree is sufficient. > > > > In order of preference / difficulty: > > 1) Subset of tree > > What precisely do you mean by this? Poor communication on my part. When I said "in order of preference / difficulty" I meant in order of difficulty/ease of implementation for maintainers (that also satisfies our needs), not our actual preference. Said differently, let's start with the easiest / lowest hanging fruit first to minimize maintenance burden. A meta target that builds only client portions of the tree seems like the lightest-weight approach. > > 2) Subset of libs / binaries > > Why is 1) peferrable over 2)? It's not (again I communicated poorly). #2 (install target filtering specific libs/binaries) would actually be better for our use case since it saves both build time and disk space. But since you mentioned #2 would be "slightly harder" in your earlier email, I was trying to suggest we tackle #1 first if that's easier to implement and maintain. > > 3) Configure-time switch to only build client binaries > > I really doubt there's interest in going there. Understood. I'm happy to help however I can and support the approach that makes the most sense from a maintenance perspective. Let me know if that helps clarify! Thanks, Benjamin -- Benjamin W. Leff
