On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Pekka Pessi wrote:
So that leaves us exactly who? :)
People having only glib 1.0 or so in their systems?
Hmm, so the target would be sofia-sip users whose distribution offers both
glib2 and glib1, but they only want to install glib1 (but not glib2 libs
for sofia-sip)? I'd say the --without-glib is sufficient for these cases
-- if the target distribution does not have glib2, sofia-sip packages
should be built without glib.
Although, for generic rpm/debs, this could be a problem (the packager
has custom glib2 installation).
Another POV is that of library footprint. The current su-glib is
sufficiently small to not matter, but something like nua-glib is already
somewhat bigger. So the case would be: app X is using sofia-sip but does
not use the glib bindings -> users of app X will not need the sofia-sip
glib stuff (even though they might have glib2 installed on their systems).
Same can be also said for other non-core modules (http, nth, stun)...
Ugh, maybe we just continue with libsofia-sip-ua as it is now. I'm
especially worried about the packaging overhead. For each library, you
will have to maintain its section in rpm spec, debian control file,
pkg-config files, and maintain the library interface version:age:rev
numbers (plus related change documentation), include namespace...
--
under work: Sofia-SIP at http://sofia-sip.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Sofia-sip-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sofia-sip-devel
