[genivi-dlt] Bug, or at least inconsistency between DLT, CommonAPI runtimes (C++, D-Bus, ...) and some other GENIVI programs
gunnar.x.andersson at volvocars.com
Wed Mar 2 07:04:39 EST 2016
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Andersson, Gunnar
>Sent: den 25 januari 2016 13:15
>Subject: RE: [genivi-dlt] Bug, or at least inconsistency between DLT, CommonAPI runtimes (C++, D-Bus, ...) and some other GENIVI programs
>Lutz, and all
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ... On Behalf Of Helwing, Lutz
>> Sent: den 25 januari 2016 10:56
>> Hi Gunnar,
>> thanks for pointing out this issue.
>> The main problem is that it was wrongly written in the manual.
>Oh, OK. I guess I had seen that before but now I only double checked
>at the HEAD commit, in which you have changed this now to #include <dlt.h>
>> We have
>> fixed this with commit 9e101ff434230a95fb8f4fd33dc48f4970496d1c. The
>> patch for this was sent to this list Nov 4th 2015 with subject "DLT user
>> manual and package config file are inconsistent with include directory".
>My apologies for not reading the list archives properly before posting.
>But I would still raise the question how to handle the many projects
>that followed the documented convention.
>> Like you said now we have the problem that other users of the library
>> have used the wrong convention thus all of them would have to change
>> which is not very satisfying.
>> Personally maybe following your suggestion to allow both conventions
>> would be the best way to go?
>Yeah, I actually prefer #include <dlt/dlt.h>, maybe mostly because I am
>used to seeing it now, and that was the previous standard.
>I'm a little surprised you decided to change this and claim that the other
>was incocrrect - after all there is nothing really wrong with the convention
>the manual asked for.
>I included a few more mailing lists in my original mail because input
>from those other projects would help but as I wrote, I can find it
>in many (or maybe all) GENIVI components that use DLT today.
>If dlt/dlt.h has been a documented convention for quite some time (years?)
>in the manual, personally I would have proposed to keep it and make sure
>it compiles correctly in all cases.
>But if DLT project itself decides to include *both* possibilities and
>recommend <dlt.h> in the manual from now on, that's OK too I guess.
>> Please discuss!
Yes, please do :-)
I've only seen my input so far. What's the plan, will DLT support both the
old and new ways of addressing the header file?
Or do we have to start hunting down every
project to update to what is actually required by the project ("dlt.h")?
If it's agreed to allow the old way also, when/how does the fix come in
that makes the old way ("dlt/dlt.h") work also with a PREFIX install?
>> Kind regards,
More information about the genivi-diagnostic-log-and-trace