xml-rpc?

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:28PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> that was largely directed at the embedded group who (ironically) think
> shared libraries make their system larger.

This isn't mere irony; there are definitely cases where the amount of code
referenced from the library by *all* apps that use it in your environment,
linked statically, is smaller than keeping a copy of the whole shared
library.  Shared libs obviously scale better on the upper end, but it's not
out of the question that shared libs would be a penalty on embedded systems.

(And then there's mklibs, which lets you reduce shared libs to only the
parts you need, and seems to be getting some interest from embedded circles
recently...)

> I thought base wasn't bounded?  The only bounding piece of Debian I know
> of is Essential, which is defined simply as the dependencies of
> dpkg/apt.

'required' is defined as the dependencies of dpkg; 'Essential' is the subset
of required that has to be usable even when deconfigured.  (apt doesn't even
figure into 'required', it's Prio: important.)

But anyway, base (= required+important) is bounded in the sense that there
will be push-back against implementations that are viewed as bloated.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org