"Dimitrie O. Paun" dpaun@rogers.com 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.