[Development] Removing libudev dependency from binary packages?

[Philip Ashmore]

On 22/10/13 15:42, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Sounds like you need a generic plug-in framework that allows you to ask
for a "udev" component that you ask for an IUDev interface.

Oh wait, I've written one, called v3c-dcom, available in SourceForge.

I know, I know, third party, extra dependency...

The reason I'm posting is I admit slightly off-topic, apologies.

Does Qt/Digia have a policy for integrating third-party libraries as
free for non-commercial use, and with a part payment to third party
library vendors to commercial customers?

Sounds like an incentive to open source developers to write for the "Qt
market" and for customers wanting compatibility and integration-tested
add-ons.

Regards,
Philip Ashmore