On 2015-10-03 10:52, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:42:26PM +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: >> 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 > > As far as I understood this, libnl-tiny is a drop-in replacement for > libnl-core. Or is there a difference in functionality or API/ABI? libnl-tiny replaces the most commonly used parts of libnl-core + -genl. The API is a bit more limited, but compatible for most applications. The ABI is different, but that doesn't matter much.
Any package that can easily work with libnl-tiny instead of libnl should be changed to make use of it, since libnl-tiny is usually part of the default package set. > Is it possible for instance to depend on libnl-tiny and libnl-route? > (instead of libnl-core and libnl-route) Mixing libnl based libraries with libnl-tiny does not work. - Felix _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
