Re: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 07:21:44PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > If the argument is that it should be opened with dlopen at runtime, I'm
> > quite confident that there are *many* people on debian-devel who have
> > worked with shared libraries and can spell out many reasons why that's a
> > horrible idea.
>
> As a systemd opponent, I'm fairly okay with programs being linked
> against libsystemd, in the same way that it is okay in my book to link
> libavahi, as long as you don't pull in the daemon itself.
Yeah, my exercise in excising it via --disable-systemd was to make sure no
undeclared dependency is left (those are rife in related code), rather than
to get rid of that small library.
> With my embedded hat on, it would be nice if there was an easy way to
> drop this extra dependency, as it means a lot of essentially dead code
> loaded on systems that don't use systemd.
_Currently_ there is: most affected packages have --disable-systemd, removal
of --enable-systemd, or that and massaging of debian/rules / control / etc.
I guess you'd want it encapsulated as some build profile flag.
It's not really relevant for even small non-embedded systems, though:
savings of 196KB disk space and a handful of RAM pages rarely has any
potential to be noticeable.
> If you are sufficiently constrained on RAM, then udev stops looking like
> a great tool to set up /dev and starts looking like a huge blob of code
> that is essentially only used for the system to speak to itself.
vdev, an udev replacement in the making, has an --one-shot mode where it
populates /dev/ and immediately exits. I guess this might be doable with
udev or busybox mdev, too, if you let them settle then kill them.
--
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory prices.
Reply to: