Re: [woody] libraries for a modular installer
bug1 wrote:
> If we breaking the installer into seperate modules, with binaries in
> seperate modules how are we going to support them with libraries?
>
> Currently we have mklibs.sh to cut down the libraries to only support
> the binaries we need.
>
> Its going to be harder to do that if we have heaps of different modules,
> some of which we will need all the time, others less often used.
Ah, there's a real can of worms.
> We could include the full libraries, but they take a fair chunk of
> space, libc nearly 900kB, and we would need that right at the start.
>
> We could compile each modules binaries to be static, but that would add
> extra overheads as well.
We could scan all available module packages when the shared library is
being rediced, and include any symbols that are in any of them in it.
This would lead to a bit of wasted space probably, but certianly less
then including full libraries, most likely less than static linking.
> I dont understand how mklibs.sh works, so this might be a silly idea,
> but.... would it be possible to make a library for the modules that only
> contains parts of the library that the modules binaries require and that
> arent in the base module ?
I'd say it's doable somehow, but hardly easy. It'd be effectively like
splitting libc into a bunch of little libraries with a few symbols each and
link each binary to various different little libraries.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: