-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
split off perl-dependent components of groff? #26892
Comments
Yes, I'd add another output for the perl stuff and use Reverse dependencies will also need some work, unless e.g. groff defaults to the perl output which also gets symlinks to the non-perl binaries. |
How does one add a I also don't fully understand why From Section 3.3 of the Nixpkgs manual:
But binaries in the |
The The description for Also, I think Perl should be a |
The split has been done in the above PR. Now invoking the pdf driver with |
Issue description
I noticed that
fish
pulls in a ~50MB dependency onperl
because it depends ongroff
. See below.fish
's closure is huge, (and it's hardly allperl
's fault)! But is taking up ~50MB by itself)and
I know there is little hope to see
fish
's closure size drop down to be comparable to that ofbash
(~11M), but I'd like to see if I can getfish
's closure size down smaller. I have some hope that sincefish
's only use ofgroff
is through calling thenroff
command that we could do something similar to what Fedora does and split thegroff
package. They have a package they callgroff-base
which includes the executables which don't depend onperl
, and thengroff-perl
which includes all the executables which needperl
to run. If we did something similar with ourgroff
package, we could eliminate a ~50MBperl
dependency from the dependency closures offish
and probably other packages.This type of split, where one ‘subpackage’ (as they say in the Fedora link above) needs
perl
but another does not, seems like it might be a common use case.fish
could make use of the same facility withpython
, for example: only twofish
functions included infish
needpython
, and they can be added or removed separately just like executables on the path (as is the case withgroff
) . Since those functions are used only interactively and optionally, a smallerfish
output not depending onpython
could be used as a dependency for scripts or as a slimmer installable option if thefish
package could be split from itspython
-using components in the same way as Fedora splitsgroff-base
andgroff-perl
.Is there already a good way to do this kind of split using multiple outputs? Should
groff
just be two packages that share the same source tarball, in order to effect this split?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: