On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 10:58 +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
> You're right, but I felt confident since this kind of change it's
> usually safe. Relative paths should be looked up first by the
> notation
> #include "../header.h", so at the moment I don't know exactly what is
> wrong with dynamic library usage or #include <podofo/podofo.h>
> notation.

other projects I work on use
   #include <path/file.h>
in public headers, where the path depends on the provided include
directory in their .pc files or such. When you make it just
   #include "file.h"
then it can break, especially when the project being compiled also
contains the same file. It also depends on the order of the include
directories. All of this, and even more things, can cause weird

> 'src/podofo' also have the advantage that it totally eliminates the
> pollution of including podofo source "root" directory. The cons is
> that it adds another directory level of course, but I think the pros
> of eliminating the need of wrappers is way bigger.

You are right.

> If not, will you consider modifying the source layout to
> "root/src/podofo" in the short or middle term?

Changing the directory structure is better done in-place, such patches
would be horrible to verify and so on. Not talking about its size and
the need to svn actually understand the move operation, to keep the
history of the changes properly.

I'm in favour of the directory structure change, but I'm not a decision
maker (not for such things). I can do it after some time after the
release, if the main maintainer will agree.

As I said before, I'm against changing the public headers.

> I'm sorry: patch reviewing with inline patches is the rule in other
> notable projects

Yes, I know. Some projects/people prefer certain things, others other.

> In other comment: did you consider to move
> to a more collaborative platform like github for source management? 

Not a question for me, but my opinion is: no. I'm not a fan of github
myself, just the opposite. There had been brought this question on the
list in a not so distant past too.

> I splitted patches in 3 series actually:

Right. It seems you already gained a reviewer, thus I'll keep it up to
Matthew (thanks Matthew).

> If not, please tell me how to procede.

No need to change anything now, my claim was more for the future (I
could mention attachments earlier too, but I didn't expect you are
going to send them inline).

        Thanks and bye,

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Podofo-users mailing list

Reply via email to