Sebastian Lackner sebastian@fds-team.de writes:
Linking it dynamically has a great advantage for distributions and package maintainers providing precompiled wine builds. I would also like to provide my wine builds with wpcap support (some users might want to use it) - but when I do that a fixed dependency is required. This is especially confusing when wine is only used as a dependency, like in case of pipelight, where users are already wondering why we now depend on libpcap (those are wine builds where it was already enabled): https://answers.launchpad.net/pipelight/+question/253591
Apart from making the code more complicated, the end result is the same, either way the dependency is required for the library to work, so I don't see why it would have to be treated differently when packaging. If the packaging tools insist on making it a requirement just because they see a dll linked to it, I'd suggest fixing the tools.