Re: Guix closure size of a system?

[Julien Lepiller]

Le 19 mai 2020 05:57:02 GMT-04:00, Pierre Neidhardt <address@hidden> a écrit :
>This works, thanks!
>
>Should we document it in `guix size -h`?
>
>I think the result is interesting with respect to the discussion we had
>about shrinking the closure sizes in Guix:
>
>--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> guix size /gnu/store/alydrspjw3sfc6b01kyz30vjhjrny86c-system
>store item                                                       total 
>  self
>/gnu/store/w8gjhcw6a16rk1dvxa97bz2znal5fihm-go-1.13.9             
>639.1   350.7   6.8%
>/gnu/store/9qs1v87rv4ch7x07adbx8pfnkjxm39d1-guix-1.1.0-4.bdc801e  
>467.8   268.9   5.2%
>/gnu/store/cpx45dbix533r2yx73jbv8fd0h8c3vyn-linux-5.4.41          
>244.0   244.0   4.7%
>/gnu/store/6hnk449wv8vhbrm0in0ychqiwipsqyza-docker-19.03.7       
>1245.3   195.7   3.8%
>/gnu/store/n08as2lvmcc14q57bq1z8p7r1kaa1vv2-gnome-getting-started-docs-3.32.2
>  164.0   164.0   3.2%
>/gnu/store/skxkrhgn9z0fg9hmnbcyfdgzs5w4ryrr-llvm-9.0.1            
>199.9   128.5   2.5%
>/gnu/store/da1lys4i2yxl549iwkbdg1fb7azphniw-emacs-26.3           
>1181.3   128.1   2.5%
>/gnu/store/8jn365r0kk69j1f4b1q2b7aa2qm1xvg1-mesa-19.3.4           
>341.6   114.6   2.2%
>/gnu/store/rn75fm7adgx3pw5j8pg3bczfqq1y17lk-gcc-7.5.0             
>178.5   107.3   2.1%
>/gnu/store/rsjdq6b0csxc16mbapx5yvrc2zrk20za-containerd-1.2.5      
>755.7   105.9   2.0%
>/gnu/store/vnivzyfy0bcxz8rn9gasav5k7skax57y-samba-4.12.2          
>594.1    98.8   1.9%
>/gnu/store/1hrwdsd5fwn3xmdgnpyg2h1j5jr6q8ws-webkitgtk-2.28.2      
>930.4    98.2   1.9%
>/gnu/store/znly83q0jmcqg6ppwbz5marj5ix9vkk2-locale-2.31            
>91.9    91.9   1.8%
>/gnu/store/ikcjpg1y0mb5qinpdc0q85xvm53cz80q-locale-2.28            
>91.8    91.8   1.8%
>/gnu/store/09a5iq080g9b641jyl363dr5jkkvnhcn-python-3.8.2          
>171.4    79.8   1.5%
>/gnu/store/fj33c1nw4v81qcd33wp53f3aa01g3m9d-ibus-1.5.22           
>946.2    66.3   1.3%
>/gnu/store/sd278fsdfx5hjrcgncflnp9qq4l42p1c-python2-2.7.17        
>151.7    61.1   1.2%
>/gnu/store/8zvc5mvk0xm3ygrxsgpyy5ilxb5rzjry-perl-5.30.2           
>146.2    57.1   1.1%
>/gnu/store/lvnv80g5iqf7fqlckadjfrad9999d4f7-mozjs-60.2.3-2        
>248.3    54.7   1.1%
>/gnu/store/ljcrz0d86r20phszvj6s1mdyjchz79ja-guile-static-stripped-3.0.2
>   54.7    54.7   1.1%
>/gnu/store/m1z7cdbqsqyp9xnjw5cvlb4a7gkcg3m4-binutils-2.34          
>93.0    54.6   1.1%
>/gnu/store/18hp7flyb3yid3yp49i6qcdq0sbi5l1n-guile-3.0.2           
>132.8    53.2   1.0%
>/gnu/store/0m0vd873jp61lcm4xa3ljdgx381qa782-guile-3.0.2           
>132.8    53.2   1.0%
>/gnu/store/fii66zlqdzv3kbfdbzmj33vvxfwvj33h-gnome-user-docs-3.32.3   
>49.9    49.9   1.0%
>[...]
>--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>- go: I think I've got go because of docker, but go should be a
>  build-time dependency, I don't think it belong here.
>
>- llvm: I think it's mostly dragged by Mesa.
>  Mesa depends on some LLVM libs, but not all of llvm:
>  https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/mesa/
>
>Moving the llvm libs to a "lib" output could reduce the closure size of
>many packages I believe.
>
>Thoughts?

Llvm doesn't support that afaik.

I've recently found that we have a 30MB static library in mozjs (a gdm 
dependency) that is described as unused by other packages in FS, and they 
suggest to remove it.

Another easy win is the 30MB gnome-backgrounds which useless on my system, as I 
don't use gnome. Not sure why it's in the closure of gdm.

We could gain 50MB in the closure of many software (but not the system) by 
placing gnutls guile bindings in their own output (for instance, icecat depends 
on ffmpeg which depends on gnutls which in turn depends on guile). This might 
still be useful to reduce the size of separate profiles.

I'll probably send a some patches in the next few days :)