[Development] Removing libudev dependency from binary packages?

[Thiago Macieira]

On terça-feira, 22 de outubro de 2013 11:39:30, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> What about dlopen/dlsym?

I hate that option. I hate where we use it and I'd rather we didn't.

In particular, since we're trying to locate one of two major versions, we need 
to try first the .so.1 version and, if that fails, try the so.0 version, and if 
that fails, have a fallback path to fail gracefully with.

No, let's just link statically. The library isn't big and its license is not a 
problem for neither the Open Source packages nor the commercial ones (Digia 
supplies the sources to the commercial customers, so there's no problem with 
the relinking clause of libudev's LGPLv2 license).

Just one note: we need to ensure that libudev.a was compiled with -fPIC.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20131022/20ec4c7d/attachment.sig>