Hi Emil, On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 8:54 AM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 18:35, Luiz Augusto von Dentz > <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Emil, > > > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:19 AM Emil Velikov via B4 Relay > > <devnull+emil.l.velikov.gmail.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Greetings one and all, > > > > > > In this series, we prune support for external plugins and cleanup the > > > associated code. The inspiration here is multiple-fold: > > > - the plugins are under linked - generally a bad idea > > > - the plugins use undefined, unscoped, unversioned internal API > > > - the main daemons expose their internal API increasing their size > > > > Im not so sure I want to remove the external plugins support > > completely, but I do understand that normally distros don't really > > want to have it enabled in production due to the reasons mentioned > > above, but I think we could find a middle ground here by disabling it > > by default but still let systems to re-enable it if they have some > > custom plugin that they may still want to use as external plugin. > > > > Thanks for the feedback. Sure, I can convert this to a "configure > --support-external-plugins", where all the presently removed code will > be compiled out. > > Still not entirely sure how external plugins are supposed to work, > considering the API/ABI mentioned earlier - any pointers? Do you know > of any example plugins that you can mention? Not really, well just the sixaxis but that can be converted to be built-in, but that being external means that there could be external plugins we don't know about thus why I think we would be better to have a flag to re-enable them just in case. Anyway I think for sixaxis we could just have it as built-in since it seems popular enough with the likes of steam deck, etc. > -Emil -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
