On 05/23/2012 08:13 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:54:08AM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 05/20/2012 02:55 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: >>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 01:23:32PM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: >>>> Due to the default automake compilation flags including -I. -I.., it is >>>> possible to pick up an xorg-gtest header like device.h instead of a >>>> project header. Namespacing the headers should resolve this issue. Users >>>> should be including xorg-gtest.h instead of individual headers, so this >>>> should not cause compilation failures. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chase Douglas <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> include/Makefile.am | 8 +- >>>> include/xorg/gtest/environment.h | 184 >>>> -------------------------- >>>> include/xorg/gtest/evemu/device.h | 91 ------------- >>>> include/xorg/gtest/evemu/xorg-gtest_device.h | 91 +++++++++++++ >>>> include/xorg/gtest/process.h | 166 >>>> ----------------------- >>>> include/xorg/gtest/test.h | 104 --------------- >>>> include/xorg/gtest/xorg-gtest.h | 8 +- >>>> include/xorg/gtest/xorg-gtest_environment.h | 184 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/xorg/gtest/xorg-gtest_process.h | 166 >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/xorg/gtest/xorg-gtest_test.h | 104 +++++++++++++++ >>>> 10 files changed, 553 insertions(+), 553 deletions(-) >>>> delete mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/environment.h >>>> delete mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/evemu/device.h >>>> create mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/evemu/xorg-gtest_device.h >>>> delete mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/process.h >>>> delete mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/test.h >>>> create mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/xorg-gtest_environment.h >>>> create mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/xorg-gtest_process.h >>>> create mode 100644 include/xorg/gtest/xorg-gtest_test.h >>> >>> tbh i'm not a big fan of a xorg-gtest_test naming. Can't we just use dashes? >> >> It's a bit too late for xorg-gtest_main.cpp, so I'd prefer to stick the >> the same semantics throughout xorg-gtest. It's not perfect, I probably >> would pick different semantics if I were to do it over again, but these >> header file names are just an implementation detail, so meh. > > really too late? how many users are out there?
We've got three in uTouch: utouch-frame, utouch-grail, and utouch-geis. I don't really want to go through a rename dance for all these projects for a bike shedding. > judging from e1c010f23272e61c28c73aa603b477ba6fbae875 the rename was > incomplete anyway, there are a few source files left that reference the old > headers still (see the patch I just sent out) Yeah, whoops :(. Thanks for catching it. -- Chase _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
