Would output-splitting PRs be welcome?


I have a general question regarding outputs and their content.

When looking at the autoconf package, you can see that it only contains the
standard out output. However, there it also installs two .info files. When
looking at the coreutils package it has an additional info output where it
puts its only .info file.

My question is, what are the guidlines advantages/disadvantages to split the
outputs of the packages. Would Pull-requests for splitting outputs of
autoconf and others be welcome?

I can already see two advantages more split packages. The first would be, that
I can have the autoconf .info files in my .nix-profile/share/info folder
and therefore have them show up in emacs without having to have the binaries
of autoconf in my PATH.

The second would be that downloads go somewhat faster since people can specify
whether or not they even want specific outputs.

And also I dont only mean the info output specifically, the man output for
example would be another one.

Any information or opinions on this topic would be greatly appreciated.


Splitting the outputs exists precisely for the kind of reasons you mention − having more fine-grained control over what you put in your closure. So yes, I think this would be welcome, provided it doesn’t break any downstream build (which should be fine for info or manpages I guess).