Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>>>>> 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. >> Too bad. >> >> I know from several simple userspace build environments (or when you even >> have >> no environment/Makefile) that they rely on defining an additional include >> path >> to compile. >> >> Creating symlinks inside these Makefiles (if available) would touch a huge >> number of userspace Makefiles to be modified. > > OK, I agree. > >> Can we make it the other way round that the Makefiles in kernel/2.6 can be >> changed to create a symlink as you suggested? > > To avoid the symbolic links, what about replacing the header files as > show below: > > $ cd trunk/kernel/2.6/include/linux > $ cat can.h > #include <socketcan/can.h> > $ cat can/error.h > #include <socketcan/can/error.h>
IMHO this only hides the symlink by creating an unvisible 'include-link' For me a symlink makes it more clearly what is going on there. Maybe a trunk/kernel/2.6/include/linux/README.symlinks could explain the idea additionally. Regards, Oliver _______________________________________________ Socketcan-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core
