Armin K. wrote: > On 07/31/2013 03:04 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >> What is a 'private' library? To me that would be a library that no one >> else calls. Yet it installs headers in /usr/include. If they want to >> make it private, then don't publish headers. >> >> It's called in (at least) evince, nepomuk-core, okular, epdfview, >> texlive, cups-filters, tumbler, libreoffice, gimp, and inkscape. How >> private is that? >> >> I call BS.
> <Black_Prince> Is there any reason why libpoppler.so soname changes in > bugfix releases? > <pinotree> because the ABI changes > <Black_Prince> uhm > <Black_Prince> why? > <Black_Prince> don't you have some "bugfix only" policy? > <pinotree> because fixes might require breaking the api/abi of the > internal private libpoppler library > <pinotree> that's why it is considered private > > He said it, not me. I didn't say you did. I'm talking about the poppler devs. > Also, every other poppler binding links to the "private" library, so you > might see it in their ldd output. Evince, Gimp, Tumbler use > libpoppler-glib, okular and nepomuk-core use libpoppler-qt4. > Libreoffice, Inkscape and Cups-Filters use libpoppler directly. Not sure > about texlive and epdfview. If there is a wrapper, then everyone should be going through that, but it appears that isn't happening. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
