On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 03:16, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:10:23PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Daniel Roesen (dr(a)cluenet.de) said:
> > On a general note: whats the reasoning behind moving those header files
> > to a subdirectory? It breaks lots of things if no compat symlinks are
> > provided, but then you could just leave the headers where they were.
>
> namespacing. Apps should *all* use subdirectories in /usr/include
> wherever possible, to ensure they all stay out of each others way.
Well, but how much is that worth if it doesn't get changed upstream,
and you have to patch every single application including headers?
Well, it depends on how much it is worth doing things right instead of
easy ;-).
Have to admit that I didn't check GDBM situation, but given that
current PHP still needs <ndbm.h> and has no provision in the
configure script for <gdbm/*.h>, I guess it hasn't been changed
upstream... and the symlink was already there in RH 7.1, so...
I don't know of that particular issue, but probably this is something
worth submitting upstream.
If I think about it: Submitting patches that could be of general
interest to upstream would be another thing that would eventually ease
the burden on package maintainers (additionally to cleaning up
Bugzilla).
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp(a)redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011