<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - daemon shouldn't depend on libpulse" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55180#c5">Comment # 5</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW --- - daemon shouldn't depend on libpulse" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55180">bug 55180</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:tanuk@iki.fi" title="Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk@iki.fi>"> Tanu Kaskinen</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=55180#c4">comment #4</a>) > Applications are already linking against libpulsecommon (via libpulse), so > they are already seeing everything that's in there. Applications can't use the functions in libpulsecommon without linking to it directly, and they should not link to it directly. > I'm afraid the only way to hide symbols is to not export them at all. Which > would mean they would have to be inside libpulse. But that also means that > the server also could not access them either, so it would have to have a > separate copy in libpulsecore. I'm not opposed to that model though, and it > probably wouldn't require that much work. Having separate copies of the common functionality in libpulse and libpulsecore sounds reasonable to me. It would somewhat increase the size on disk and memory, but that doesn't sound too bad to me. libpulsecommon could still exist as a static library (included in libpulse and libpulsecore) to avoid compiling things twice. To see if others have different views, I think it would be a good idea to bring up this topic on the mailing list, if you're going to work on this. BTW, are you having some practical problems with the current setup, or do you want to fix this only because it's ugly to link the daemon to libpulse?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>