Re: [Libreoffice] unnecessary building basegfx twice ?

On 06/01/12 17:35, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Friday 06 of January 2012, Michael Stahl wrote:
> > On 06/01/12 12:19, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > > > Maybe the easiest way out would be to turn pdfimport from an .oxt
> > >
> > > extension into an (optionally installable) part of LO.
> > >
> > > Makes a lot of sense, I think. Ditto for other "extensions" included in
> > > the source code.
> >
> > in the case of pdfimport, isn't there a potential licensing problem
> > because it uses GPL-licensed xpdf/poppler code?
>
>  I confess to having no clue about .oxt whatsoever, but assuming that now the 
> pdfimport extension is binary code that eventually ends up dlopened by the 
> soffice.bin process, how does turning it into a normal LO component, which is 
> binary code that eventually ends up dlopened by the soffice.bin process, 
> change anything? It shouldn't matter whether we open a pdf by finding out we 
> have this filter that can handle it or by finding out we have this extension 
> that can handle it.

the main difference is that an extension can be installed on a different
OOo/LO version, e.g. you could install the latest LO pdfimport oxt on
OOo 3.3 or the other way around (as long as minimum version requirements
are met), because it only depends on UNO APIs and ABI stable URE libraries.

whether this benefit outweighs the cost in the build system of building
a second static basegfx library is a matter of consideration.