On 18.7.2020 v 23:51 Dmitri Korin wrote:
(it feels like you're more knowledgeable than all the high rankers on
Stackoverflow with C++!)
Hi,
I'm not that knowledgeable, some parts are related on my experience,
some are guesses.
Does the podofo library (in my case static) not include the
libraries like freetype within itself?
I'd say it depends not only whether PoDoFo itself is statically linked,
but also whether its dependencies are static libraries. If so, then
everything is bundled in the resulting binary. If not, then you need
also the other libraries. This looks like your freetype is not a static
library, but a dynamic library. You can see the difference in the
resulting lib size, static libraries are much larger than those dynamic.
Being on a Linux-like system, you can use a tool 'ldd' to see what the
library/executable requires. Just run `ldd libpodogo.lib` and you'll see
its runtime dependencies.
Whether you can use static linking of the dependencies (and PoDoFo
itself) depends on the license you choose for your project. There are
some limitations for static linking, like your project should be Open
Source and some other details I do not recall precisely. You should
search for it, either in the license(s) of the respective projects or on
the Internet.
In other words are the symbols
not defined with podofo.lib and I should always directly link the
various libraries my version of podofo.lib rely's on?
I hope it's answered from the above. Trying to rephrase: static library
can avoid dynamic libraries (extra files for distribution) for that
specific library, it doesn't tell anything about the dependencies of
that library. Thus, if you want a pure static linking, then all the
dependencies the PoDoFo links to should be also static libraries.
Bye,
zyx
_______________________________________________
Podofo-users mailing list
Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
