Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
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.
OK, then shall I remove the unneeded checks for <aspell/aspell.h> and
<hunspell.hxx> and commit?
Abdel.
