Re: Advice on the project structure for a library

[Jef Driesen]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Jef Driesen wrote on Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 12:31:29PM CEST:
> > > > CFLAGS=-I${includedir}
> > > > #include <libfoo/header.h>
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > CFLAGS=-I${includedir}/libfoo
> > > > #include <header.h>
> [...]
> > > It's purely a matter of preference.  You're right to segregate the  
> > > headers, but a project shouldn't mandate one #include/-I style over 
> > > another.
> > I don't really want to mandate a specific style to the users of my  
> > library. I just want to use the first style inside my own library, and  
> > right now that doesn't work.
>
> Good thinking.  The first style helps avoid name clashes with generic
> header file names.

That's exactly the reason why I wanted to use that style.

> > Suppose that in one of my public headers, I include one of the other  
> > header files, with <libfoo/headerx.h> style. Now when I compile the  
> > library in my src tree, it fails because there is no such header present  
> > in my src tree or system wide (not installed yet). The same for the  
> > examples.
>
> Can you reorganize your source tree to look more like the installed
> tree?  IOW, move headers in a subdirectory libfoo or include/libfoo.
> The biggest reason against doing so, namely that CVS doesn't track
> renames, isn't very relevant any more nowadays.

I can reorganize my source tree anyway I want. I'm using subversion, so 
renaming is no problem.

Is there any preference for choosing libfoo or include/libfoo, or is 
that just personal taste?