On 30-Jan-2003 Benno Rice wrote: > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:57, David O'Brien wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:46:47PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> > I would not introduce a <platform/foo.h>, but rather >> > <machine/${variant}/foo.h>. The reason for this is that the >> > /usr/include/platform directory is only needed on powerpc and mips, >> > which seems to indicate that it should be under <machine>. Also, >> > the use of machine/${variant} allows us to install the headers for >> > all variants, which may improve cross-building. >> >> This is a very nice way of adding the complexity when it is needed, but >> not getting in the way of those cases where it isn't needed. > > Except that it requires us to know which platform variant directory to > use in each case. If this directory is then copied or symlinked to > /usr/include/platform or /usr/include/machine/platform, I don't object > but otherwise it'll lead to an ifdef nightmare in the machine includes.
Yeah, a platform symlink would make sense. I think /usr/include/platform would make more sense since in the kernel you would have: sys/foo/include (foo machine/ headers) sys/foo/bar/include (bar platform/ headers, installed to /usr/include/machine/bar with a /usr/include/platform symlink so that #include <platform/foo.h> can easily work in both kernel and userland) -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message