>>>>> "Xiaofan" == Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Xiaofan> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Xiaofan Chen
Xiaofan> <xiaofanc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 18, 2011, Uwe Bonnes
>> <bon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Xiaofan" == Xiaofan Chen <xiaofanc@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Xiaofan> Right now. the location of libftdi-1.0 header ftdi.h
>>> is Xiaofan> different from libftdi-0.1x. For libftdi-1.0, the
>>> header is in Xiaofan> /usr/local/include/libftdi/ftdi.h whereas
>>> for libftdi-0.1x it Xiaofan> is in /usr/local/include/ftdi.h.
>>>
>>> Xiaofan> I am not so sure what is the reason and whether this is
>>> a good Xiaofan> idea or not.
>>>
>>> What is your proposal how to handle different versions of the
>>> library headers?
>> IMHO different name is the best, I.e., using libftdi.h for 1.0.
>>
Xiaofan> I think we have gone through one discussion last time. My
Xiaofan> suggestion is not to let libftdi-1.0 API limited by the
Xiaofan> existing libftdi API and API breakage is okay. Just like the
Xiaofan> case of libusb-1.0 versus libusb-0.1.
Xiaofan> In this case, it is better to have different name and both can
Xiaofan> coexist with each other and they can also exist in the same
Xiaofan> default directory.
Xiaofan> The library for libftdi-1.0 can be libftdi-1.0.so and
Xiaofan> libftdi-1.0.a to differentiate from libftdi-0.1x.
I see a lot of constructs like
/usr/include/<libname>-x.y/<libname>/<include files>
on my system
--
Uwe Bonnes bon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
--------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
