On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 06:58:05PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Neal Gompa wrote: > > Note that dlopen() doesn't fix the problem of the giant libsystemd in > > the first place. It just obfuscates the true dependency graph of > > libsystemd. > > At least it (hopefully) means liblzma will not be opened if you do not use > an API that needs liblzma. But it makes it even harder to tell whether > liblzma will end up being loaded or not. > > > Long ago (I think like ~10 years ago), libsystemd was actually several > > separate smaller libraries. Perhaps we could consider asking upstream > > to switch back to that model? > > +1 This comes up occasionally, and the main reason to not do this is that systemd code has a lot of helpers that are used across a lot of the codebase and we end up with recursive calls between many of the different "components". So if tried to split things, we'd either need to remove a lot of polish, or copy code, or have the shared code duplicated. Some of those split-out libraries would probably end up embedding almost all of some of the other ones. libsystemd now consists of 12 parts (sd-bus, sd-daemon, sd-device, sd-event, sd-hwdb, sd-id128, sd-journal, sd-login, sd-netlink, sd-network, sd-path, sd-resolve) and it'd be a lot of work to untangle, and the overall footprint would likely grow. Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
