Re: [Libreoffice] unnecessary building basegfx twice ?

On Friday 06 of January 2012, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 06/01/12 17:35, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Friday 06 of January 2012, Michael Stahl wrote:
> > > 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.

 I was speaking in the context of the potential licensing problem, which 
AFAICT either exists in both cases or does not exist in either (which seems 
to be the case given Fridrich's comment).

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

 Given that we ship it as if it actually wasn't an extension in practice it 
looks like the benefit does not exist.

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 l.lunak@suse.cz