Oliver Hartkopp wrote: > Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>> Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>>>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>>>>> Kurt Van Dijck wrote: >>>>>>> I'm not yet totally up with include/socketcan & include/linux >>>>>>> seperation (which I don't like to question here). >>>>>>> I noticed you do patcgh include/socketcan/can/dev.h >>>>>>> but not include/linux/can/dev.h >>>>>> Oliver, what was the reason to maintain a redundant >>>>>> include/linux/can/dev.h? >>>>> The reason was to allow userspace applications to include that path. It >>>>> would >>>>> be very bad, if you would need to adapt the userspace apps to include the >>>>> socketcan stuff, that is intended to separate the driver includes for >>>>> older >>>>> kernels. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we should create symlinks for that ... >>>> That would be better, indeed, or at least >>>> >>>> $ cat include/linux/can/dev.h >>>> ... >>>> include/socketcan/can/dev.h >>>> >>>> And the link could be created in the Makefile. >>> ??? >>> >>> AFAIK you can only create symlinks for real files (not directories) in the >>> SVN. I would suggest to replace the .h-files in 2.6/include/linux with >>> symlinks pointing to the .h-files in 2.6/include/socketcan >> But we could do it in the Makefile, as the Linux kernel does for >> include/asm. > > Hm - i still don't have a idea how this is done. > > For me it would be important, that userspace Makefiles like the current > can-utils/Makefile do not need to be changed. > > Is this possible?
No. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
