On Monday 12 April 2004 11:50, Dominique Devriese wrote: > Kevin Krammer writes: > > Actually dlopen'ing lib for advanced features is helping packager, > > otherwise they would have to build two versions, one with having the > > option enabled, one without. > > Yes, but in this case, it's not about an advanced feature. Right, neither was the SSL case. I don't know the reasons, maybe it is not available on all platforms which KDE supports. Did anyone create an upstream bugreport for this? > Anyway, both the above represent a reason to use dlopen'ing of normal > libs, but in either case, it's a very ugly workaround, and should be > avoided as much as possible. I wouldn't personally have used it in > either case. I think there was no viable option in the case of OpenSSL, as not having support for HTTPS is a dead end. Debian has a clear advantage with such problems, the highly appreciated effort to create a fine package granularity enables packagers to build alternative packages (one for feature disabled and one for enabled), but unfortunately a lot of other distributors still use huge packages, making it necessary to detect the availablity of certain features at runtime :( Cheers, Kevin
Attachment:
pgptictV1RPwA.pgp
Description: signature