[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus

From: Maxime Devos
Subject: Re: usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:12:36 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0

On 30-08-2022 09:59, muradm wrote:


basu is sd-bus library extracted from systemd.

Currently, there are two packages depending on it,
which are mako and grimshot.

I suggest switching xdg-desktop-portal-wlr to basu.

In very same issue, Maxime asks to discuss switching
_all_ dependents of elogind to basu.

[1] Some elogind dependents, like wireplumber, as per
code depends on sd-login.h also in module-logind.c.
While I have wireplumber-without-elogind locally,
I don't propose switching it basu, because someone
may want module-logind.c to work.

[2] Currently there are 1461 packages depend on elogind.
First, all of them should be analyzed if they do use
sd-bus only, those can be switched to basu. Then
those using more than sd-bus should be analyzed if
elogind is missing would their functionality be hurt.
If these problems are like [1], then IIUC these problems would manifest as build errors. Checking for build errors is relatively simple by pushing to a separate branch first, evaluating it on and checking for new build failures.
Because of [1] and [2], I find it not feasible/not
possible to blindly switch _all_ dependents from
elogind to basu.

Do I miss anything else here?

IIUC, everything using basu also works fine with elogind (*), so the 'status quo' of still using elogind (for old and new) seems harmless to me (except for size -- basu is smaller).

As far as I know, the benefit of 'basu' is using less storage (**).  If most dependents are switched from elogind to basu, then this benefit can be fulfilled. But if we just do a mix of elogind and basu, then we have both elogind and basu in the store, _increasing_ the storage footprint instead of lowering, which is the opposite of the goal of lowering storage usage.

As such, assuming that lowering the storage footprint was your reason for switching to basu, I think we should either try switching _all_ packages to basu or keep using elogind and add elogind instead of basu to new dependents.


(*) This is an unverified guess. If disproved, my reasoning becomes a lot weaker. (**) This is just a guess about what your goal was, maybe you had a different reason in mind. E.g., basu seems to be more active than elogind.

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]