Hello Thomas! Thanks for chiming in on this issue. I had sent a follow-up at about the same time you did with a few details on the history as I could reconstruct it. See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067771#18
In summary: I believe you changed the default location from <cdk/cdk.h> to <cdk.h> in 2012, adding a configure option at the same time. When this version was uploaded to Debian (much later), a debian-specific patch was added to retain the original location. Four years ago, the previous debian maintainer removed that patch - but was never uploaded to debian unstable. I took over maintenance a month ago and inadvertently uploaded to unstable a version where the header change from 2012 was exposed for the first time. I can see a valid argument for retaining the Debian practice. But when I discovered that the upstream change was 12 years old, I figured that there are likely other folks long used to the "new" header location and have adapted their code. So there is also a valid argument to adhering to the upstream location and harmonizing the landscape for code using libcdk. I actually did a search on github and discovered examples of all three cases: * code using <cdk/cdk.h> only * code using <cdk.h> only * code that probes both locations and uses the one found I'm wondering whether you have an opinion on the merits of one path versus the other. Do you have any information about how much currently-maintained software is still using <cdk/cdk.h>? At present, I'm leaning towards retaining the default location <cdk.h>. Thanks, -Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
