[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: merge wip-haskell?
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: merge wip-haskell? |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Aug 2020 17:59:05 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.4.10; emacs 26.3 |
Jakub Kądziołka <kuba@kadziolka.net> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:12:36AM -0700, John Soo wrote:
>> I would rather wait until some evidence that the closure size would be too
>> large. Also I’m not sure propagation is necessary for dependents to find
>> libraries or use paths from an input.
>
> Ricardo already explained that this is indeed the case.
Yes, and for the case of pandoc it’s significant. The closure of
ghc-pandoc is >3GiB right now and with the changes it’s <200MiB. This
affects lots of R packages that need Rmarkdown, and lots of bioinfo
packages.
There's no doubt that moving the static libs to their own output has a
significant impact on closure size.
--
Ricardo
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, (continued)
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/07
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Timothy Sample, 2020/08/09
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/12
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/13
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/15
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Timothy Sample, 2020/08/17
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ludovic Courtès, 2020/08/24
Re: merge wip-haskell?, Jakub Kądziołka, 2020/08/07
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, John Soo, 2020/08/07
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Jakub Kądziołka, 2020/08/07
- Re: merge wip-haskell?,
Ricardo Wurmus <=
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, John Soo, 2020/08/07
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ludovic Courtès, 2020/08/24
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/24
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ludovic Courtès, 2020/08/28
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, John Soo, 2020/08/28
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Timothy Sample, 2020/08/28
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, Timothy Sample, 2020/08/29
- Re: merge wip-haskell?, John Soo, 2020/08/29
Re: merge wip-haskell?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/08/07