path: root/dev/pkg/opkg/static.mdwn
diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'dev/pkg/opkg/static.mdwn')
1 files changed, 70 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/dev/pkg/opkg/static.mdwn b/dev/pkg/opkg/static.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb623b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/dev/pkg/opkg/static.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+[[!meta title="Static libopkg"]]
+[[←_Back_to_Opkg in ProteanOS|dev/pkg/opkg]]
+ProteanOS currently dynamically links the `opkg` executable against a
+`` shared object and provides the latter in a separate `libopkg.1`
+binary package for use by any other applications that might also use libopkg.
+In ProteanOS, only the `opkg` package depends on `libopkg.1`. Additionally,
+there don't seem to be any other actively maintained applications, at least none
+released publicly, that use libopkg.
+With only one dependent executable, a library is more space efficient when
+statically linked into that executable than when built as a shared object and
+dynamically linked into the executable. The reason is that the library's
+symbols can be stripped if statically linked into the executable. The symbols
+in a shared object, on the other hand, are needed at run time to resolve uses of
+those symbols in the executable to their addresses in the shared object.
+Therefore, on a ProteanOS system that uses opkg but doesn't need libopkg for any
+other applications, some space can be saved by statically linking libopkg into
+the `opkg` executable. There are a couple of ways this can be done.
+Option 1
+One option is to simply statically link libopkg into the `opkg` executable in
+the `opkg` binary package and drop the `libopkg.1` and `libopkg.1-dev` binary
+packages. This is the simplest option and saves the most space overall in the
+package archive, however it doesn't allow any future libopkg-using applications
+to be added to ProteanOS.
+Option 2
+Another option is to leave the `libopkg.1`, `libopkg.1-dev`, and `opkg` binary
+packages as they are and introduce a new `opkg-static` package with an `opkg`
+executable statically linked with ``. The `opkg` binary package
+would continue to depend on `libopkg.1`, while `opkg-static` would not. This
+allows platforms *without* other libopkg-using applications to use opkg without
+libopkg's symbols and allows platforms *with* other libopkg-using applications
+to share libopkg between multiple executables. This however comes at the
+expense of increased package archive size.
+An alternative to the naming of the `opkg` and `opkg-static` binary package
+names is to use `opkg-dynamic` and `opkg`, respectively.
+Option 3
+A compromise between options 1 and 2 is to leave the `libopkg.1` and
+`libopkg.1-dev` binary packages as they are and statically link the `opkg`
+executable in the `opkg` package with libopkg, without building an `opkg`
+executable that dynamically links against libopkg. This means duplicated code
+and some increase in file system usage on any platforms that may someday include
+some other libopkg-using application in the future. But it also minimizes file
+system usage on platforms where opkg is the only user of libopkg, like option 1,
+and balances package archive size between options 1 and 2.
+We'll probably go with option 1 at first. If we add any other libopkg-using
+applications in the future, we can switch to option 2 with the `opkg-dynamic`
+and `opkg` binary package naming scheme, for backwards compatibility.