-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve header handling #17
Comments
I spent a little time thinking about this but didn't come up with a clean solution. One way would be to install the include files to Another option would be setting CFG_EXTRAS field in the |
@jonbinney thanks for your thoughts. Cluttering Using Another thing that I've come up with in the last few days (actually, motivated by your post :-D) is to add a patch file to automatically adapt the soem layout at build time. This might allow us to easily import any new versions without much overhead (i.e. resolving merge conflicts) and we'd only have to adapt any changes that happened in the meantime. But if this is that easy and "stable", I'm not sure... |
@jonbinney I actually took your suggestion and played around a bit with it, see #23. |
SOEM expects headers in a flat directory hierarchy (i.e.
<headerpath>
). In contrast, ROS, by convention, expects headers in a subdirectory which is named after the ROS package (i.e.<pkg>/<headerpath>
).Currently, with the intention of not having to adapt any soem headers, but still somehow stick to the ROS convention, the
soem
headers are installed tosoem/*.h
.This leads to the problem, that any ROS code building against
soem
runs into problems with finding headers.A work around to overcome this is shown in the Usage section of the README.md.
This should be cleaned up such that we don't break existing code but without having to adapt any soem sources.
This has been reported multiple time, e.g. in #4 and #8
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: