On 23 February 2018 at 22:44, Francesco Pretto wrote:
> "static" is just the most often use case [...]
>
I write it better: "static" linkage is the most frequent use case for
the need of wrapper headers.
--
Check out the
On 23 February 2018 at 19:38, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Frankly, I don't get this patch AT ALL. Header files have *nothing* to
> do with linkage. At the very least, it is a completely misnamed set of
> things.
>
>
You're correct. The point of this patch is just to allow the use of
the library w
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 08:31:31AM +0100, zyx wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-22 at 13:05 +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
> > The current patch convert headers to really use
> > relative paths, allowing to use podofo with #include
> > notation.
>
> Hi,
> you should discuss such invasive changes bef
On 23 February 2018 at 13:41, zyx wrote:
> other projects I work on use
>#include
> 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 com
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 libr
On 23 February 2018 at 08:31, zyx wrote:
> you should discuss such invasive changes before suggesting them and
> sending them to the list. Your changes in public headers are wrong.
> Maybe they make things easier for static library usage, but they break
> dynamic library usage.
>
You're right, bu
On Thu, 2018-02-22 at 13:05 +0100, Francesco Pretto wrote:
> The current patch convert headers to really use
> relative paths, allowing to use podofo with #include
> notation.
Hi,
you should discuss such invasive changes before suggesting them and
sending them to the list. Your changes in
