On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Juan Lang<juan.l...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Right. Is there an particular reason we can't dlopen the native library? > > I don't think dlopen is preferable, quite the opposite in fact. > dlopen leads to a situation in which Wine has features that work on > the build system, but not at runtime on another system that doesn't > have the library available. Statically linking to our dependencies > avoids this, but it's only possible when the license is compatible. I > think that's why we use dlopen, e.g. for OpenSSL, where due to license > restrictions we can't statically link the code. > --Juan
If the code can be copied into wine itself, it seems to reason that we could statically link that same code ;-). http://www.mpg123.org/ - it's LGPL 2.1. -- -Austin
