On 4 July 2016 at 15:32, Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+wayl...@sardemff7.net> wrote: > On 04/07/2016 16:23, Emil Velikov wrote: >> >> From: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com> >> >> When managing headers there's normally two ways to handle them >> - with or without the subfolder. >> >> Opting for the latter case here, since it will provide direct feedback, >> whether one is using libweston-0 or any other version. >> >> Which in turn should deter (help prevent) issues like building/linking >> against multiple versions of libweston. >> >> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.veli...@collabora.com> > > > I really prefer not to do that. It means supporting multiple versions of > libweston will lead to a really big #ifdef dance at the top of the file to > include every single version you might support, instead of a just a few > #ifdef around specific new/old functions you use. > Yes, I agree with you - adding ifdef spaghetti is ugly. Then again, if one wants to support multiple versions they will need a bunch of them either way.
Keeping things explicit will give (and/or save) you and others a fair bit of time when it goes wrong/nasty. Here is an (somewhat silly, or you might say sad) example I've seen in the open-source Tizen world... or was it Android: Dev. lacks exact knowledge when function A (libfoo1) and B (libfoo2) are introduced. Thus he/she adds both versions of libfoo in the configure pkg-config checks. At which point, you will have symbol collisions, seemingly random corruption and/or crashes. Cheers, Emil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
