[Development] Removing libudev dependency from binary packages?

[Laszlo Papp]

Actually having thought a bit about this, and written the change more or
less, my personal opinion is that it would be better to get distribution
packages (via OBS or any other kind) correctly in the future...

udev, and probably other libraries might not guarantee binary compatibility
for releases, and it may happen that they bump the version frequently in
which case it would hard to do cross-working software.

Strictly speaking, dynamic library management even complicates the code for
everyone having to deal with udev, or some other similarly determined
libraries.

If Qt can make sure in the future there are proper distribution packages
(at least for the common variants), this would not be such a big issue. I
understand it cannot happen any soon. I am personally fine with building
QtSerialPort for 5.2 without udev for the official installer. Archlinux,
and some other distribution users will get it right from the distribution
packagers after all.

Well, this is my two cents.


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:

> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-34329
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Knoll Lars <Lars.Knoll at digia.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20131024/540bb2fd/attachment.html>