On 03/27/2017 10:24 AM, Daniel Mihai via iotivity-dev wrote: > I think we should organize in a similar way both the development and the > installed paths - unless we have good reasons to organize them in different > ways (I am not aware of such reasons). > > Dan > > -----Original Message----- > From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 9:18 PM > To: Daniel Mihai <Daniel.Mihai at microsoft.com>; 'Nash, George' <george.nash > at intel.com>; 'Philippe Coval' <philippe.coval at osg.samsung.com>; > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: RE: [Iotivity-maintainers] [dev] C API docs: which Doxyfile? > > Good point, Dan. > > One simple question from the path issue. > Do you comment on installed header path or development source itself? > Developer perspective this well organized path is important but this is > installed header view point. > > BR, Uze Choi
Well, there are a lot of directories named include now in the source tree - ignoring extlibs ones find | wc came up with about 40. So I'm guessing in the short term only the "installed location" question can reasonably be addressed. That is a single directory in "out", but still split into a number of subdirs. Is that "good enough" or is there more work to be done? Does anyone actually build against the "out" tree? I know the tizen target actually packages it all up.
