Hello, On Wednesday 06 November 2013 08:52:29 Aurélien Gâteau wrote: > Yesterday frameworks meeting spawned a discussion regarding folders in > header files.
I think there's an aspect missing in your proposal. There's the convention we
want for #include and where we install. That's in the end two different things
even though related.
I think, that for all the frameworks, headers should be installed in:
$PREFIX/include/KF5/FrameworkName/
FrameworkName would then contain both the regular .h headers and the
convenience camel case ones. If we go for that, we get something consistent
install wise and easy to deal with. Then the distinction you make below is
just about the include path we want when someone pulls a framework in.
> I think the consensus is there should be two different situations:
>
> 1. 'k' prefixed header files
>
> If the header files of a framework are prefixed with a 'k', then headers
> should be installed in include and convenience headers should be
> installed in include/KDE.
I think in a case like that we still want the includes installed in
$PREFIX/include/KF5/FrameworkName/ (convenience or not). But when someone
pulls the framework as a dependency then both $PREFIX/include/KF5/ and
$PREFIX/include/KF5/FrameworkName/ are added in the include path, thus
supporting the #include <kfoo.h> and #include <KFoo> styles.
> 2. Non-prefixed header files
>
> If the header files of a framework are not prefixed, then they should be
> installed in include/{lowercaseframework} and convenience headers should
> be installed in include/KDE/{CamelCaseFramework}.
I think in a case like that we still want the includes installed in
$PREFIX/include/KF5/FrameworkName/ (convenience or not). But when someone
pulls the framework as a dependency then only $PREFIX/include/KF5/ is added in
the include path, thus supporting the #include <FrameworkName/foo.h> and
#include <FrameworkName/Foo> styles.
> Some special files should still go in include:
>
> {lowercaseframework}_export.h
> {lowercaseframework}_version.h
Make that $PREFIX/include/KF5/ instead of just include and I agree.
I think it departs quite a bit from your initial proposal, making it slightly
more complicated on the include path side, but it has pros like:
* making it more homogeneous on the installation side;
* allows co-installability of major releases in the future.
Opinions?
Cheers.
--
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
