Re: should gnome-desktop-service really provide all of this to a profile?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Mon 07 Mar 2016 22:11, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> I installed gnome using
>>>
>>>   guix package --profile=/tmp/foo-profile -i gnome
>>>
>>> There is a lot of stuff there.  If gnome-desktop-service extends
>>> profile-service-type with gnome, will that not "pollute" a lot of
>>> profiles?  Attached is a listing of that profile.
>>
>> Good point, this sounds undesirable (and shows that some packages would
>> benefit from separate outputs—e.g., “doc” output for xcb.)
>>
>> What exactly is required?  Would it work to change the ‘gnome’
>> meta-package to union only the bin/ sub-directories instead of
>> everything?
>
> I do not know.  What I would want would be just the binaries and
> anything needed in share/.  It would be great if there were no
> development-related files there, as that's the only area where I care
> about "purity" or "pollution".  Something seems to be propagating
> libraries into the profile.

Right.  I think we should rewrite the ‘gnome’ meta-package in terms of
‘union-build’ and explicitly include only bin/ and share/.

WDYT?

> I will punt on the issue though; I think it's a problem with one of
> the gnome packages and not the service.

OK, makes sense.

Ludo’.