On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleana...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Felix Fietkau <n...@openwrt.org> wrote: > >> On 2015-09-17 15:05, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: >> > From: Alexandru Ardelean <a...@ocedo.com> >> > >> > The idea is that we may only need the libnl core, >> > or libnl-route or libnl-nf libs, but maybe not all of them. >> > >> > This way we can select which ones we need without bloating the >> > firmware image too much. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleana...@gmail.com> >> Maybe it would be better to have libnl as a metapackage selecting >> libnl-core + the other ones. The way you split the package, you might be >> breaking some packages that depend on it. >> >> Or did you review all of the packages to ensure that they only need the >> core? >> >> - Felix >> > > Good point. > I only took a look at base packages. > > Looking through the packages feed, there's keepalived , ibrcommon, kismet, > bmon and aircrack-ng that depend on libnl. > Other feeds don't have libnl deps. > > I'll check if libnl is sufficient and if not, implement your suggestion. > > Thanks > > Seems I'll have to re-spin this patch. There are a few things that need updating on it. They came up once I did a full clean + rebuild. I forgot about the staging dir stuff that piles up and causes false-successes. So, - bmon requires libnl-route - aircrack-ng requires libnl-genl - kismet i am not sure 100% ; maybe libnl-genl ; I did not want to investigate much deeper - ibrcommon requires libnl-genl and libnl-route - keepalived requires libnl-genl Hopefully I got most of this right. Now, here's the bloat for libnl: - 86856 Sep 22 14:00 libnl-3.so.200.16.1 - 244304 Sep 22 14:00 libnl-route-3.so.200.16.1 - 16096 Sep 22 14:00 libnl-genl-3.so.200.16.1 - Seems libnl-nf is not needed. That's around 80k. - libnl-tiny is 30k Maybe aircrack-ng and keepalived could also work with [just] libnl-tiny, but that's another discussion. I need libnl-route for an upcoming new lldpd version, which will require libnl-route. The main reason I started this split, is because I need libnl-route, and I am trying to minimise the bloat wherever I can. I'll also see about pulling libnl-tiny out [in my case], since I'll be stuck with needing libnl anyway. Anyway, moving forward with the split: 1) Do I rename the libnl package to libnl-core and make libnl a metapackage that pulls in everything ? or 2) Do I leave this structure as is (with the fixes/updates I'll add later) and update those packages to pull only the libfiles that are needed ? For 2), I'd of-course need the approval/blessing of the package maintainers above. >From my point of view any of these 2 approaches is fine, because I can just pull whichever libnl-xxx package I need. Thanks Alex
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
