[systemd-devel] Standalone libsystemd

[Ryan Gonzalez]

For some of us, our processors aren't too strong to build unneeded files 😅
Also, I had figured Meson's disablers would handle this nicely from an impl
standpoint.

That being said, I totally understand why you wouldn't want to throw on a
ton conflicting options that may not be used that often.

--
Ryan (ライアン)
Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else
https://refi64.com/

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 6:49 AM Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net>
wrote:

> On Do, 21.03.19 20:19, Ryan Gonzalez (rymg19 at gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I've come to really love using the sd-bus and sd-event APIs for
> lightweight
> > D-Bus access and event loops, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The
> amount
> > of bindings to other languages for stuff like sd-bus. However, this
> > unfortunately doesn't work in a Flatpak environment, and building the
> > entirety of systemd for some libsystemd stuff just...isn't that
> > great.
>
> Why not? What's the problem? I mean, sure you waste a bit of CPU time,
> but if you build a minimal build and just throw away everything you
> are not interested in, what's the problem with that?
>
> > My idea was to add a Meson config option that would just build the
> systemd
> > libraries, e.g. -Donly-public-libraries.
> >
> > That being said, I know that not all the libraries would be buildable
> this
> > way. At minimum, udev requires the library version to match the host:
> >
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-October/024539.html
>
> While there hasn't been a compat breakage in this for a while we
> generally do not guarantee api stability between libudev and udev's
> database, so yes, you are are not supposed to mix&match libudev with
> arbitrary host udev versions.
>
> > So I guess this comes down to:
> >
> > - Would libsystemd work standalone? What features *wouldn't* work? (I'm
> > guessing the device and journal APIs.)
>
> Depends. sd-bus and sd-event should be fine. sd-device sd-login otoh
> probably not so much.
>
> > - Would a flag like this be considered for addition to the build scripts?
>
> Hmm, people request something like this all the time, but I am a bit
> conservative on these things, I really don#t want to drown our build
> system in too many options that all conflict with each other...
>
> In particular I am not convinced at all that suddenly introducing
> negative options (i.e. options that do not disable/enable a specific
> component, but disable/enable all but some) is really a great idea, in
> particuar, because such logic of "everything else but me" creates all
> kinds of conflicts if you combine them with similar options. (i mean,
> what is that even supposed to mean then?)
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering, Berlin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20190322/ea574ee6/attachment.html>