Abdelrazak Younes <you...@lyx.org> writes: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >> Abdelrazak Younes <you...@lyx.org> writes: >> >>> I thought this was because some distribution likes <aspell.h> and >>> others like <aspell/aspell.h> >>> >> >> Yes it is. However... >> >> >>> In any case, I think we should use <aspell.h> and <hunspell.hxx> in >>> the code and adjust the include paths instead if need be. >>> >> >> ... this is what the code already does, so the tests are useless. >> > > I don't understand; if I put <hunspell.hxx> instead of > <hunspell/hunspell.hxx> it does not compile anymore. What I meant was > that the test are necessary and autotools should add a > -I/usr/include/hunspell' if it detects that 'hunspell.hxx' is in > there.
I meant we should use hunspell/hunspell.hxx in the code unless we have evidence that it does not work in some installations. JMarc
