PATCH: cups dynamical dependency

Alexandre Julliard julliard at
Mon Nov 11 15:48:45 CST 2002

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at> writes:

> Well, if we do this dynamically, why have this HAVE_CUPS check which is a
> compile time check? IMO we should just include a copy of the CUPS headers
> that we need, and drop the compile time check altogether. In fact, this
> check is misleading, as it suggests that we've verified some sort of
> compatibility with CUPS which we haven't. We _assume_ that a certain API
> is available at runtime, so why pretend we use something that's on the
> machine we compile on?

I think the check is just fine. If you don't have the headers you
can't build CUPS support in, no matter what will be present at
runtime. The assumption is that the library that you will (maybe) find
at runtime is compatible with the headers you have built against; this
is much better than shipping our own version of the headers and
assuming all platforms are using a compatible library.

Alexandre Julliard
julliard at

More information about the wine-devel mailing list