On 04.12.2014 16:22, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> [...] Can we have /usr/lib64/libpcp.so without an Avahi dependency? >> Or should we treat PCP as an optional dependency of Cockpit and >> structure our code so that PCP is more of an add-on, used when >> available? > > Can we dig a little deeper? avahi-libs by itself is tiny (<200K); is > its "Require: avahi" part the only problematic aspect? In Fedora20+ > that's already gone (BZ913168); maybe that simply needs to be > backported to RHEL*.
For starters, you can see the reaction of a system administrator to Avahi in that bug. I make no comment on whether such a reaction is justified or not. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913168 So there are two reasons here: * We don't want a hard dep on "Avahi" to be a mental barrier to having Cockpit on someone's server ... even if might have an optional dependency on avahi in the standard Cockpit Fedora install. * Platforms like Atomic try very very very hard to get their bundled software stack down to a minimum. I would like the cockpit-bridge part of Cockpit to be usable anywhere. Even very lean environments. We're working hard to get there. Having cockpit-bridge pull in an unused hard dependency on avahi-libs is counter to both of the above goals. It seems that such a dependency would need to be optional, which would make PCP be optional too. The pcp-libs dependencies on cyrus-sasl and nss are less problematic, despite the fact that they'd be unused by Cockpit, since those are software more typically installed on a server. Stef
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ cockpit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/cockpit-devel
