State of Header installation directory ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

State of Header installation directory ?

Marc Ihm
Hi,

regarding the discussion about where to install the headers (e.g. ffi.h)
i am all in favor of targeting /usr/include or another public directory.

If I read

https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2018/msg00003.html

correctly, this has already been agreed upon.

But still the headers are installed e.g. in
/usr/local/lib64/libffi-3.2.1/include which cannot be found by e.g.
configure

So my question: has there been any progress in this matter ?

Or maybe, is there a recommende d workaround ?


Thank you and best regards
Marc Ihm


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of Header installation directory ?

Matthias Klose-6
On 06.10.19 19:42, Marc Ihm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> regarding the discussion about where to install the headers (e.g. ffi.h) i am
> all in favor of targeting /usr/include or another public directory.
>
> If I read
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2018/msg00003.html
>
> correctly, this has already been agreed upon.
>
> But still the headers are installed e.g. in
> /usr/local/lib64/libffi-3.2.1/include which cannot be found by e.g. configure
>
> So my question: has there been any progress in this matter ?

this is fixed on the trunk, and in the first 3.3 release candidate.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of Header installation directory ?

Marc Ihm
Great ! Thank you.

Am 07.10.2019 um 08:12 schrieb Matthias Klose:

> On 06.10.19 19:42, Marc Ihm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> regarding the discussion about where to install the headers (e.g.
>> ffi.h) i am all in favor of targeting /usr/include or another public
>> directory.
>>
>> If I read
>>
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libffi-discuss/2018/msg00003.html
>>
>> correctly, this has already been agreed upon.
>>
>> But still the headers are installed e.g. in
>> /usr/local/lib64/libffi-3.2.1/include which cannot be found by e.g.
>> configure
>>
>> So my question: has there been any progress in this matter ?
>
> this is fixed on the trunk, and in the first 3.3 release candidate.