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" <[email protected]> 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 >[email protected] >http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
