David Brownell a écrit :
> On Wednesday 25 November 2009, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Dean Glazeski a écrit :
>>> This patch shouldn't be necessary. I have the libftdi version working
>>> fine with current head. I think this might be an issue with mixing
>>> libraries in the configure command. I've responded to the next email
>>> with more information.
>>>
>>> // Dean Glazeski
>> Well it shouldn't be, but it is :) and no, this is not an issue of
>> mixing libraries, not in my case anyway, as my ./configure only
>> configures the opensource lib (and I suspect it to be the case for the
>> OP too).
>>
>> On my system, libftdi, built from git, places its header files in
>> ${prefix}/include/libftdi, and thus compiling for it requires a -I --
>> even worse, for libftdi examples, it requires -isystem rather than -I.
>
> Sounds like a libftdi isssue ... you might ping that list
> to see what they have to say, and if it's fixable before
> the 0.17 release goes out.
>
> Or maybe you should just find better config options to use.
> I see that recent Debian doesn't need /usr/include/ftdi, for
> example:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/amd64/libftdi-dev/filelist
>
> Maybe they treat this /usr/include/ftdi thing as a bug and
> work around it ... :)
Hmm... Checking the versions, Debian is talking about 0.16. I'm using
the git code, which is 1.0-ish, and has a commit to add CMake rules. Now
if I have to choose between where the Debian folks say the LIBFTDI 0.16
headers should go, or where the LIBFTDI folks say 1.0 headers should go,
then... I'd ask pkg-config or search, rather that take one single stance. :)
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
