Re: make glib optional

[md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)]

On Aug 23, Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net> wrote:

> This patch is incredibly ugly, and broken. The most obvious issue is
> for example that on Fedora glib is in /lib, and on multilib machines it is
> even in /lib64.
It does not pretend to be universal, it was just a proof of concept for
the initial packaging. I already have a version which uses ldd to find
out the library name.

> If you dislike glib that much then I'd suggest splitting off udev-acl
> and the rules files into a seperate package and then have ckit depend
> on it. But this explicit check you suggested is just failure.
The point is not disliking glib, but disliking gratuitously inflating
the base system of 2 MB when it can easily be avoided.
Debian officially supports much more than desktop/server systems, and
many of them have no use for ConsoleKit. Even popularity-contest (whose
statistics are biased against smaller/embedded systems) shows that while
udev is almost universal, glib is not installed on 15% of the sample:

http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=udev+libglib2.0-0+module-init-tools&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1

I considered generating another binary package just for udev-acl, but it
seemed overkill for an 8 KB program. I still think it would be simpler
to just make it part of ConsoleKit since it has no use without it.

-- 
ciao,
Marco