On 4/26/05, Karsten Ohme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ludovic Rousseau schrieb: > >Hmm! Maybe the separation between pure pcsc and libmusclecard was not > >a good idea after all. They have too many source files in common. > > > >Should we go back and have only one source archive as we had before > >1.2.9-beta7? > > > > > > Well, it is quite logical how it is now.
Yes, it is logical but not really practical. > It is reasonable that the > functionality of libmusclecard and and pcsclite is quite different. The > only difference for Windows systems is that some of the header files > must be available as prerequisites. This is also true for Unix, not just Windows. But the Unix header files are already installed in /usr/include/PCSC/ if pcsc-lite is already installed. > If this is mentioned, this is > enough. But indeed also some sources files (I believe the tokenparser.c, > maybe some more ... ) which in Unix are part of the pcsclite library, > are necessary. I plan to reorganise the source code to have something like: - pcsc-lite/src/ : pcsc API source code as it is now - pcsc-lite/libmusclecard/ : libmusclecard source code libmusclecard will: - use some header files from pcsc-lite/src/ and pcsc-lite/src/PCSC/ using the -I../src preprocessor directive. I imagine it is possible to do the same with a Windows proprocesseor/compiler - use some source files from pcsc-lite/src/ using correct rules in Makefile.am. I also imagine it is possible to do that with a Windows compilation project. Would this proposition be acceptable for the Windows developpers/users? Regards, -- Dr. Ludovic Rousseau For private mail use [EMAIL PROTECTED] and not "big brother" Google _______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle
