Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Dev

libcec: loader vs. direct linking

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

mythtv at colin

Jun 4, 2012, 2:29 AM

Post #1 of 2 (230 views)
Permalink

libcec: loader vs. direct linking

Hi,

Is there a specific reason to use the libcec loader rather than linking
directly? Support is optional, so I see no real reason to have two
levels of optional-ness!

The reason I ask is that at present, no directly linking against libcec
happens and thus when packaging mythtv, no automatic requires are added
fro linked libraries.

This means that users may get confused if they install the mythtv
package if it doesn't have a manual require added for libcec - such
manual requires should be unneeded.

A secondary problem (for which I've submitted a patch upstream to
libcec) is that the loader code is essentially a little static lib. If
security errors are discovered distros will have to update it and
rebuild all packages that use the loader. This means there is more
chance of fixes being missed.

A more practical problem is that the loader does not use the lib major
and thus unless you have the -devel package for libcec installed in your
distro, it will not find libcec. I have patches this in Mageia but we
will need to rebuild mythtv (and other apps using the loader) for it to
see this new code.

So, all in all the dynamic loader is a pain. Can we use directly linking
or will this break e.g. win32 builds?

Col

--

Colin Guthrie
myth(at)colin.guthr.ie
http://colin.guthr.ie/

Day Job:
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

jyavenard at gmail

Jun 4, 2012, 3:42 AM

Post #2 of 2 (230 views)
Permalink

Re: libcec: loader vs. direct linking [In reply to]

On 4 June 2012 19:29, Colin Guthrie <mythtv [at] colin> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a specific reason to use the libcec loader rather than linking
> directly? Support is optional, so I see no real reason to have two
> levels of optional-ness!
>
> The reason I ask is that at present, no directly linking against libcec
> happens and thus when packaging mythtv, no automatic requires are added
> fro linked libraries.

Last I added weak-linking and dynamic linking to one of the myth lib ;
it was quickly reverted as the code wasn't portable.

E.g. you do it differently on mac, windows, linux...

If you find a way to do such thing in a portable manner, I don't see the problem
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads