Jiri Slaby
On 05. 07. 22, 17:46, Dan Čermák wrote:
we have mostly focused this week's meeting on how the ALP Desktop is going to look like and how we can dispel fears around flatpaks and containers when it comes to the ALP desktop.
I have never looked into this container stuff in more detail. But one of the concerns I was always afraid of was how this behaves WRT shared libraries and their memory footprint? IOW, containers kill the purpose of shlibs completely and one has to hold all of the versions (per each container on the top of ones from the base system) in memory, right? This sounds as if using static libraries.
A small follow up on this one, more in the context of flatpaks
though. The question has been raised, whether flatpaks sharing a runtime
would benefit from memory deduplication of shared libraries in the
common runtime.
The short answer is: yes. The longer and much more elaborate answer can
be found in this great reply from upstream:
https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/4997#issuecomment-1192616912
So as long as we don't stop dynamically linking, there shouldn't be any
huge memory penalties for flatpak applications.
Cheers,
Dan
--
Dan Čermák