On 11/03/2011 09:15 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
Personally I like the idea. I'd probably go for the flattened version
unless there is a good reason to carry a bunch of sub-directories around.
If there are any serious arguments against doing this then I'd like to
hear them.
Daniel
Keeping the sub directories allows you to develop off checked out code
base with one include path. You could do that with flattened path but
you would have to move the headers in your code tree. I'm all for that
but it's really not up to me. If you move the includes around on the
install then it complicates the include paths when building against the
code tree versus building against an installed version. I hope that
makes sense. Many packages separate the includes in their source tree,
e.g. geos, ossim, opencv. The source tree includes mirror the installed
include tree. So it's less complicated and this makes for easy installs
/ uninstalls.
Dave
On 11-11-03 05:31 PM, Mateusz Łoskot wrote:
On 3 November 2011 21:24, David Burken<dbur...@comcast.net> wrote:
Just wondering if you've thought about namespacing the include
paths? That
is:
#include "cpl_config.h"
#include "gdal_frmts.h"
Becomes:
#include<gdal/port/cpl_config.h>
#include<gdal/gcore/gdal_frmts.h>
Or (flattened):
#include<gdal/cpl_config.h>
#include<gdal/gdal_frmts.h>
David,
I thoroughly agree.
Here is related ticket: http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/3435
IMHO, current way of installing headers is becoming inconvenient and
unacceptable...
I realize this would be a big change. Just thought since you're
taking the
plunge on cmake it's something to consider.
Yes, but I'm not a decision maker.
I can only encourage to collect more critical mass and nudge GDAL PSC
about this idea.
Best regards,
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
