On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 15:07 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > Maarten: > > > Do I conclude correctly from the bug that in pulse 1.0 it isn't true > > anymore that the library dependencies are: > > libpulse -> libpulsecommon > > libpulsecore -> libpulsecommon > > I am not familiar enough with PulseAudio to be able to describe the > library dependencies. I just know that programs which use libpulse > fail to compile unless you link in libpulsecore. It seems that > libpulse or libpulsecommon uses symbols in libpulsecore. At least on my system, this is not the case: $ readelf -d /usr/lib/libpulse.so | grep pulse 0x0000000000000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libpulsecommon-1.98.so] 0x000000000000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libpulse.so.0] readelf -d /usr/lib/libpulsecommon-1.98.so | grep pulse 0x000000000000000e (SONAME) Library soname: [libpulsecommon-1.98.so] Are you sure this isn't some Solaris linker weirdness? > > I do remember some stuff about circular dependencies. But as only > > libpulsecore links to libsamplerate, the above dependency chain would > > be the best to have, because libpulse is always LGPL, regardless of > > pulse is build with libsamplerate support. > > I think it may be ambiguous if libpulse is LGPL if it links in > libpulsecore built with GPL libsamplerate. It does not, *but*, I see one bug that I've fixed now [1] -- during a Makefile.am cleanup, a bunch of extra dependencies got added to libpulsecommon, including libsamplerate. This will get fixed in the next release which shouldn't be too far away. [1]: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/pulseaudio/pulseaudio/commit/?id=bb4b8f896e63559df2b53617ff205d8a4024178c [...] > > And I'm a bit confused about why you would > > have a GPL library installed, but don't want pulse to use it in order > > to keep it LGPL. (and of course for these kind of use cases you can > > easily override the autodetection) > > To me, it seems more "safe" to avoid linking a GPL library into a > LGPL program by default. This is the sort of licensing concern that > would be better for people to make a conscious decision about rather > than having a configure script make a decision for you. Personally I > think this is especially a concern if the LICENSING file is not > well maintained, or contains incorrect or misleading information. It is well-maintained, insofar that when things with different licenses are pulled in, the file is updated. I'm assuming that people who care keen about the GPL/LGPL division would also be careful about how the PA server is compiled. I'm not completely against making libsamplerate an off-by-default choice if others feel this is more prudent, though. -- Arun
