[Ffmpeg-devel] [RFC] dlopen vs linking for external libraries

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Sun Feb 11 21:49:43 CET 2007


On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 08:16:35PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala at pp1.inet.fi> writes:
> > On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 20:06 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> keep dlopen and drop linking if you want to drop something, i really hate
> >> it if a application has 500 dependancies which you have to install even
> >> though you dont use any of them or having 500 variants of a application
> >> 
> >> of course you could argue that we should not care about binary packages
> >> but only support things compiled from source ...
> >
> > The link dependencies are not a problem for local compilation if they're
> > for optional features and won't be enabled if the libraries are not
> > present. They don't cause problems with proper binary packaging systems
> > either (such as Debian) when the system can take care of the
> > dependencies. The only problem case would be trying to distribute
> > binaries without proper packaging.
> I think Michael was complaining about the endless lists of
> dependencies that are typical for binary packages.  Most distros tend
> to enable everything that can possibly be enabled, so you end up with
> many gigabytes of disk space taken up by stuff you never ever use.

yes, thats what was complaining about ...

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there
will be no State. -- Vladimir Lenin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20070211/71411c46/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list