Re: usage of basu as requirement for sd-bus

[Maxime Devos]

On 30-08-2022 11:27, muradm wrote:

> >         
> >         IIUC, everything using basu also works fine with elogind (*), so
> >         the
> >         
> >         'status quo' of still using elogind (for old and new) seems
> >         harmless
> >         
> >         to me (except for size -- basu is smaller).
> >         
> >       
>       
>       I don't find the "everything using basu also works fine with
>       elogind"
>       
>       statement/assumption/guess correct, as per contents of elogind and
>       
>       basu. See above comment for ifdef thingy.
>

From the README.md of basu:

> The sd-bus library, extracted from
>         systemd. Agreed on th
>         
>         Some projects rely on the sd-bus library for DBus support.
>         However not all
>         systems have systemd or elogind installed. This library provides
>         just sd-bus
>         (and the `busctl` utility).
>       
      This does not look like basu adds additional functionality.

> My intention is not to have something that
>         is not used. Roughly, if
>         
>         elogind is not used, why should I have it on my system.
      You should have it because the alternative (i.e., sometimes using
      basu and sometimes using elogind) increases disk space usage --
      it's all internal, unless there's a bug you shouldn't notice it's
      using elogind instead of basu unless you're doing "guix edit" or
      such.
>  Basically,
>         
>         
>         elogind provides: elogind, loginctl, busctl, libelogind (sd-bus,
>         sd-login ...) ...
>         
>         basu provides: busctl, libbasu
>         
>         
>         If basu is enought for package it should dependen on basu IMHO.
>         
>         
>         So my reason is not directly-storage-only, but dependency which
>         
>         impacts storage in some or another way.
>         
>       
      We have package outputs, we can separate the libelogind and busctl
      from the rest. elogind is used, just not in its entirety.
> Btw, how much storage are we talking about
>         when having some
>         
>         packages depend on elogind and some on basu? Is it user
>         
>         storage or build server/substitute storage concern?
>       
      For basu and elogind itself: 0.9 MiB and 4.2 MiB

For basu and elogind in total: 72.9 MiB and 172.8 MiB.

(See: "guix size").

The latter numbers are a bit misleading, as one of the dependencies is 'shepherd' and 'libgc', which would be installed anyway by other software, and because elogind refers to pkg-config while it probably shouldn't.

On "Is it user storage or build serve/substitute storage concern": yes. There isn't really a "user / substitute storage" distinction, unless you count baked nars. But that's just multiplying the storage by approx. 2 (ignoring deduplication).

Greetings,
Maxime.

OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature