Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I personally find symbolic links more confusing, because you don't know
> what file you really edit/modify. Well, but that's a matter of taste.

Argh!

I remember, why we had two separate paths containing nearly the same stuff:

All of these include file are including other includes files in the same
include paths. So a symlink nor your #include approach will help us here :-(

Maybe it's just a matter of 'developing process' that the patches for the
SocketCAN repository use 'include/socketcan' ... and the changes in the
include/socketcan need to be applied (by us) to include/linux (if needed).

Oliver

_______________________________________________
Socketcan-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/socketcan-core

Reply via email to