Kevin Krammer writes: > On Sunday 11 April 2004 19:38, Dominique Devriese wrote: >> Frans Pop writes: >> > On Sunday 11 April 2004 17:29, Dominique Devriese wrote: >> >> Hendrik Sattler writes: >> >> > Why? The same problem as always: Debian does not ship the >> >> > /usr/lib/libidn.so in libidn11 but only in the development >> >> > package libidn11-dev. However, runtime detection does look for >> >> > exactly that name. >> >> >> >> Yes, you're right. As always, upstream KDE made the bad >> >> decision to dlopen libs that weren't meant to be dlopen'd. >> > >> > How about filing a bug against upstream as well to ask them to >> > use the library the proper way? >> >> Well, the problem with that is that KDE upstream has the tendency >> to say "It works for us, and we don't care about the Debian >> policy.", meaning we have to do the work ourselves anyway..
> And sometimes it is the fault of the library folks making API > changes in non-major releases, virtually forcing others to support > more than one version at a time (e.g. OpenSSL) True. > 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. 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. cheers domi
