On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > How feasible/fragile/weird would it be to dlopen() it on demand?
>
> FWIW, that would not really move the needle one bit so far as
> my worries are concerned. What I'm unhappy about is the very
> sizable expansion of our build dependency footprint as well
> as the sizable expansion of the 'package requires' footprint.
> The fact that the new dependencies are mostly indirect doesn't
> soften that blow at all.
>
> To address that (without finding some less kitchen-sink-y OAuth
> implementation to depend on), we'd need to shove the whole thing
> into a separately-built, separately-installable package.
>
> What I expect is likely to happen is that packagers will try to do
> that themselves to avoid the dependency bloat. AFAICT our current
> setup will make that quite painful for them, and in any case I
> don't believe it's work we should make them do. If they fail to
> do that, the burden of the extra dependencies will fall on end
> users. Either way, it's not going to make us look good.
It would increase the build dependencies, assuming a package
maintainer wants to enable as many features as possible, but it would
*not* increase the 'package requires' footprint, merely the 'package
suggests' footprint (as Debian calls it), and it's up to the user
whether they install suggested extra packages, no?
