From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 22:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCHv2 1/1] package/libcurl: introduce options to reduce feature set In-Reply-To: <20190207205510.11172-1-patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> (Thomas De Schampheleire's message of "Thu, 7 Feb 2019 21:55:09 +0100") References: <20190207205510.11172-1-patrickdepinguin@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87mun71dl7.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas De Schampheleire writes: > From: Thomas De Schampheleire > Libcurl is more than 250 KiB (libcurl) / 100 KiB (curl binary) in size. > About 50 KiB / 15 KiB of this can be saved by disabling features/protocols > that are not commonly needed: > - proxy support: 15 KiB > - cookies support: 10 KiB > - various less common protocols: 25 KiB (libcurl) + 15 KiB (curl binary) > Note that the exact amount of space saved depends on the architecture, > toolchain, and other factors (for example the 'reduced' set disables the > --libcurl option which only has impact on the curl binary). > Other packages that are selecting libcurl could be incompatible with these > reduced options. But, there is no clear way to find out which packages are in > this situation, in particular because issues may only be visible at runtime. That is not really nice :/ > +config BR2_PACKAGE_LIBCURL_SMALL > + bool "reduced protocol/feature selection" I know I proposed this option myself, but having a negative option like this is not really nice. What should a package that needs libcurl built without the _SMALL option do? Depending on !BR2_PACKAGE_LIBCURL_SMALL isn't really nice. Could we perhaps invert the option and call it BR2_PACKAGE_LIBCURL_EXTRA or something like that? (with default y) -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard