> -----Original Message----- > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia....@qt-project.org > [mailto:development-bounces+kai.koehne=digia....@qt-project.org] On > Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:41 PM > To: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] Removing libudev dependency from binary > packages? > > 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)
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 ... Regards Kai _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
