On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Jarosch <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
