[Development] Removing libudev dependency from binary packages?

Knoll Lars Lars.Knoll at digia.com
Thu Oct 24 17:36:48 CEST 2013


Sounds like dlopen¹ing is the way to go. Sucky, but at least it¹ll work.
And according to the post below most things should be compatible between
udev0 and udev1.

Cheers,
Lars

On 24/10/13 16:28, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:

>On quinta-feira, 24 de outubro de 2013 13:46:39, Koehne Kai wrote:
>> I just asked, it seems not to be possible:
>> 
>>http://www.marshut.com/yiqmk/can-apps-ship-their-own-copy-of-libudev.html
>> 
>> 
>> So we're back to either moving the libudev dependency to a plugin that
>> qtserialport tries to load (huh), we live with the fact that
>>qtserialport
>> won't work on some distributions, or we compile it unconditionally
>>without
>> libudev support. I don't mind either way ...
>
>Ok, thanks Kai
>
>That answers the part about shipping (static or dynamic). So the only
>option 
>is dynamic loading (ugh) or skipping support entirely (also ugh).
>
>PS: None of the systemd developers were in my binary compatibility
>session 
>yesterday here at LinuxCon.
>
>PPS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjRAKuis7T8 @ 16:55
>"people have heard my complaints about the fact that the Linux desktop is
>this 
>morass of infighting and people who do bad things"
>"I do hope that the desktop people would just try to work together and
>work 
>more on the technology"
>Linus started complaining about the problems on the userspace *because*
>of 
>udev. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303.
>
>-- 
>Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>_______________________________________________
>Development mailing list
>Development at qt-project.org
>http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development




More information about the Development mailing list