[Development] Removing libudev dependency from binary packages?
thiago.macieira at intel.com
Thu Oct 24 15:41:20 CEST 2013
On quinta-feira, 24 de outubro de 2013 13:33:10, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the lgpl does not limit how *we* can build and distribute our packages,
> because we ship the sources anyway.
> the ones who'd have a problem would be our customers.
> but why is everyone talking about static linking, anyway? the decision
> to ship a copy of the library, and the way it is linked, are orthogonal.
> QtAngle demonstrates how to make a fully dynamic version.
> QtZlib shows how to fake it.
And we're doing it to ICU too. So maybe the simplest is to just include one of
the two versions of a dynamic libudev with the packages. Provided, of course,
that libudev works with either version of the daemon. (If it doesn't, I can
quote Linus to Lennart about it)
PS: IMO, QtZlib is a good example of what not to do...
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Development