Bidi B patch

[Alexandre Julliard]

Shachar Shemesh <wine-devel at shemesh.biz> writes:

> First I want to clarify something. Nothing in this email is meant to
> suggest that I think the bidi change should, in any way, depend on
> this issue. If you want, I can even amend my patch.

Yes please.

> Only because we add "-I." to the compilation flags. Adding "-I." to
> the compilation flags should not be necessary.

It is necessary, this has been discussed before.

> In any case, it makes much sense to me not to place non-exported
> headers in include. The idea is that you can tell packagers to take
> the entire "include" directory and ship it. Unless I misunderstand,
> and winelib apps actually NEED gdi.h, we do not wish to have it
> packaged. This leaves packagers with zen decisions - not a good thing.

gdi.h will be moved to dlls/gdi at some point. Which of course means
that if we do things the way you suggest we then need to go back into
all files and change <> back to "".

>> The fact is that all our source files use "" for
>>both internal and exported headers, and we are not going to change all
>>of them.
>>
> Why not, really?

Because it isn't broken. We need to fix exported headers to use <>
since it can make a difference in Winelib apps that use them; but in
Wine source files "" works just as well as <>.

> Alexandre, I only partially agree. I think the current situation,
> where "" and <> behave the same, is an undesireable one. We want to be
> able to tell packagers to grab the entire /include directory with no
> fear (libwine-devel.rpm anyone?).

Yes, include/ should contain only exported headers, it's part of the
dll separation work, we are getting there. It's completely orthogonal
to whether we use <> or "" to include them.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com