dbus-daemon statically linked with libdbus-1?

[David Zeuthen]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Simon McVittie <
simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> wrote:

> Let me turn this around. Why do you want it not to be statically linked?
> The usual reasons for wanting to avoid static linking are on-disk size,
> in-memory size, and security updates.
>

FWIW, I only asked because dbus-daemon, libdbus and
dbus-daemon-launch-helper (which I forgot to mention in my initial mail,
sorry) came up as a red flag we we ran a script that detects overlap of
symbols on all ELF files on a system.


> Disk size:
>
> On my x86-64 Debian laptop, the shared libdbus is 280K. All the dbus-*
> tools are linked to it dynamically, except for dbus-daemon (408K) and
> dbus-daemon-launch-helper (280K). So the most you could possibly save
> like this would be to cut up to 280K each off the on-disk size of
> dbus-daemon and d-d-l-h (in practice it'll be less, because I'm sure
> they don't use all of libdbus). Sure, that would be an improvement, but
> I'm not sure the cost/benefit ratio is significant (particularly if
> dynamic linking overhead eats up some of the benefit).
>

For tiny embedded systems, 500K disk space savings actually sounds pretty
good. Memory sharing between dbus-daemon and libdbus-1-using apps sounds
good too even if it's only 280k-ish (the more memory we can give back to
the application, the better etc.). On a desktop system, sure, there's no
point :-)

(Of course, in a kdbus future this problem - and many others - sorta goes
away. That future isn't now and not for a while, however.)

Thanks,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/attachments/20140605/0b55ad84/attachment.html>