[pisa-src] Re: r1240 - in trunk/community-operator: Makefile.am co_client.c
- From: Diego Biurrun <diego@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pisa-src@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:49:52 +0200
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:18:22AM +0200, Thomas Jansen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 01:26:15PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:47:11PM +0200, Jan Marten wrote:
> > > --- trunk/community-operator/Makefile.am Mon Oct 19 21:51:52 2009
> > > (r1239)
> > > +++ trunk/community-operator/Makefile.am Mon Oct 19 22:47:11 2009
> > > (r1240)
> > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> > > INCLUDES += -I@PISA_HIPL_SRCDIR@/libhiptool
> > > INCLUDES += -I@PISA_HIPL_SRCDIR@/libdht
> > > INCLUDES += -I@PISA_HIPL_SRCDIR@/opendht
> > > +INCLUDES += -I@PISA_HIPL_SRCDIR@/firewall
> > > INCLUDES += -I@PISA_HIPL_SRCDIR@/hipd
> > > INCLUDES += -I@PISA_HIPL_SRCDIR@/i3/i3_client
> > > INCLUDES += -I@PISA_HIPL_SRCDIR@/pjproject/pjnath/include
> >
> > All of this is very ugly.
> >
> > Why don't we just use the full relative path in the #include statements?
>
> Even if _we_ do, HIPL doesn't IIRC. The problem is that we include one or two
> HIPL headers, which in turn include further HIPL headers that expect that each
> required subdirectory is available as -I$PATH.
Well, "because they suck" is never a good answer to the question "Why do
we suck?" :)
For some reason overusing -I is very popular. I guess once autotools
have made your brain rot for long enough people just don't notice
ugliness any longer...
> The most elegant solution would
> be getting rid of HIPL dependencies altogether.
Yes, that should be the goal. Otherwise PISA should just be another HIP
branch.
> Unfortunately I think the hipconf calls we use in our applications are
> not part of the RFC but HIPL specific.
:-/
Diego
Other related posts:
