On Sunday 23 November 2014 19:55:53 Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > The difference is with dlopen we can support more than one major version > with the same binary making it possible to upgrade udev for instance > without having to upgrade all of Qt at the same time. In this case it > doesn't matter that much, but dlopen can allow for more painless upgrading > for a rolling distro.
Again, that's a situation that doesn't happen. The distribution knows when it will rev a library to a new major version and it knows how long it will keep the older version around for compatibility. In-between those two dates, the Qt libraries get rebuilt and everyone is happy. > Imagine if libGL wasn't dlopen'ed, we don't want to > update Qt binaries every time somebody updates their graphics driver. I don't see the issue with graphics drivers. And we don't dlopen libGL either, we link to it, which is a source of problems by itself since we can't choose at runtime to use GL or GL ES2. -- 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
