On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Jarosch
<thomas.jarosch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday, 20. June 2011 16:31:55 Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> > The intention is to have
>> > /usr/(local/)/include/ftdi.h for 0.1
>> > /usr/(local/)/include/libftdi-1.0/ftdi.h for 1.0
>> > /usr/(local/)/include/libftdi-x.x/ftdi.h for x.x for later versions
>> >
>> > and have
>> > #include <ftdi.h>
>> > #include<libftdi-1.0/ftdi.h>
>> > #include<libftdi-x.x/ftdi.h>
>> >
>> > For the two latter cases,
>> > #include<libftdi-1.0/libftdi.h>
>> > #include<libftdi-x.x/libftdi.h>
>> >
>> > would also be fine, but i.m.h.o. bring no advantage.
>>
>> If 1.0 and 0.1 can not co-exist, I see no benefits of the
>> above. If this is to differentiate library version, then it
>> is actually much easier to have a new API called
>> libftdi_getversion() which return the version at runtime.
>
> Having the two co-exist makes it much easier for distributions
> to ship both versions. Just think about what kind of mess it
> would be if libusb 0.x and libusb 1.x couldn't co-exist...
Yes I am all for this idea.
> I'm in favor of:
>
> /usr/include/ftdi.h <- libftdi 0.x
> /usr/include/libftdi-1.0/libftdi.h <- libftdi 1.x
>
> This helps people to catch errors with the include path much easier.
I think this is good. In that case, the library name needs to
be different as well. libftdi.so and libftdi-1.0.so, probably.
BTW, I do not like the name of libftdi-0.1x inside
Debian/Ubuntu -- they call it libftdi1...
http://packages.debian.org/sid/libftdi1
http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?searchon=sourcenames&keywords=libftdi
--
Xiaofan
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
