Am Montag, 19. Dezember 2005 03:33 schrieb Mike Shaver:
Mike,
> On 18-Dec-05, at 4:30 PM, Martin Konold wrote:
> > But it adds another runtime requirement to the application. When using
> > traditional linking this means that the application will fail at
> > runtime if
> > the appropriate cups cl
On 18-Dec-05, at 9:43 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
Mike Hearn (who wrote relaytool) said that Debian objected to it
(see http://plan99.net/autopackage/Linux_Problems#weak )
because it would defeat Debian's automatic dependency
scanning. Presumably implementing DT_USEFUL directly
would make them happy.
On 12/18/05, Mike Shaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and this is a limitation of the Linux linking model that I think
> should be addressed with some urgency, if it is a goal to make it
> easier for ISVs to adopt new Linux-desktop capabilities
> aggressively. (I think that it should very muc
On 18-Dec-05, at 4:30 PM, Martin Konold wrote:
But it adds another runtime requirement to the application. When using
traditional linking this means that the application will fail at
runtime if
the appropriate cups client library is not available.
Yes, and this is a limitation of the Linux l
Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2005 19:35 schrieben Sie:
Hi Norm,
> >I disagree because this ties the 3rd party application to a specific
> > desktop. For the success of the Linux Desktop it is imho mandatory that
> > 3rd party applications integrate well in any desktop which follows the
> > same commo
Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2005 14:14 schrieb Michael Sweet:
Hi Michael,
> > It is a bad design decision for an application to directly link to the
> > cups client library (ABI concerns,...) but it is much better to use a
> > protocol based interface to use the full potential of CUPS.
>
> I strongl
