> On Jan 5, 2022, at 8:57 AM, Nick Dunkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Leif, > > Thanks for the response. This is certainly something that we would be > interested in pursuing and contributing if successful. > > One thing I don’t understand. How would the plugins work in this scenario > (the .so files)? Would we need to statically link the set of plugins we’d > want available in the final traffic_server executable? Or would plugins > simply not be supported in this model?
Yeh, plugins would be tricky, maybe impossible. That would certainly require code changes to the core at a minimum. You would essentially have to tell it which plugins to build into the traffic_server binary, and bypass all the dlopen() dynamic loading of modules. Definitely tricky :). — Leif > > Thanks > > Nick > > From: Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 6:02 PM > To: Users <[email protected]>, Nick Dunkin > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Building Traffic Server - static linking > > > > > On Jan 4, 2022, at 12:41 PM, Nick Dunkin <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi > > We are wanting to deploy Traffic Server in a Docker container, and would like > to achieve the smallest possible container size. > > Is it possible to build Traffic Server with static linking, so that we can > run a single executable in a distroless container? > > That “option” was removed quite a while ago unfortunately. If someone is > interested in making it viable again, we’d certainly take a PR. This should > (in theory) not require any code changes, rather, just changes to > (optionally) control static builds via configure.ac and the various > Makefile.am’s. > > Cheers, > > — Leif
