From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Mick Subject: Re: include/ and -I Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:35:20 -0700 Message-ID: <509458B8.8070709@inktank.com> References: <509437D1.9080105@inktank.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:52261 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758810Ab2KBXfX (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:35:23 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rr4so2750894pbb.19 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:35:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <509437D1.9080105@inktank.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: ceph-devel On 11/02/2012 02:14 PM, Dan Mick wrote: > I was somewhat surprised to note that we don't build with -I include, so > that files that userland programs would find with > relative-to-/usr/include paths have to be modified for building in the > tree. > > Was this conscious, or does anyone else think it would be smoother to > -I include/ so that outside-the-tree and inside-the-tree #includes are > more similar? (and Mr. Lang points out that, of course, I really mean something like -I $(srcdir)/include, of course)