On 9/21/19 2:59 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> Is it usable without any plugins? Does the null plugin take much space? I >> wouldn't think so. Would it be too messy to just ship the null plugin >> unconditionally, even if just for this particular purpose? > > Right! My original plan was that we could change the API to drop all > required callbacks. The "null" plugin would become the plugin which > had no callbacks and could therefore be built in to the nbdkit binary. > > Unfortunately my plan doesn't quite work because the null plugin has a > config parameter (nbdkit-zero-plugin is more like this "null" plugin). > Oh well.
Yeah, the 'zero' plugin is a lot more compact than the 'null' plugin. Do we have to ship a separate nbdkit-zero.so, or could we make nbdkit itself behave as if the zero plugin were in use if no actual plugin is dlloaded? > >> On the other hand any program that relies on such probing to work >> might depend not only on nbdkit, but also on the null plugin. > > Indeed, or as you say above we could package one of the regular > plugins with the server to guarantee it is always available. Even if we require a plugin, always packaging the zero plugin along with nbdkit seems reasonable (we'd have to tweak the docs a bit to mention which plugin we settle on as being always available). -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list Libguestfs@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
