[ros-dev] headers suggestion
ionucu at videotron.ca
Sat Nov 20 20:36:28 CET 2004
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> Steven Edwards wrote:
>> --- Jonathan Wilson <jonwil at tpgi.com.au> wrote:
>>> Are we going to actually get permission to re-licence then submit all
>>> the w23api changes back to w32api?
>> Unless its its on MSDN or something thats undocumented that you can
>> find via a simple google search then the w32api people will not accept
>> it. As far as I care we should just maintain our own SDK based on the
>> Wine headers, The DDK based on the Mingw DDK and our own NDK for the
>> undocumented stuff.
> Most of what is in the WINE headers is the stuff that is in the
> "platform SDK" and then "the undocumented stuff".
> Keeping the "undocumented" stuff (i.e. the bits microsoft doesnt
> document in the Platform SDK) and the "documented" stuff seperate
> (i.e. putting the undocumented stuff into seperate headers) is a good
> idea IMO. (e.g. have a "userundoc.h" for the undocumented stuff or
> And if we are doing that, we can (if people will re-licence)
> contribute the documented stuff (all of which is in the MS platform
> SDK or the DDK) back to w32api itself to make w32api into something
> that gets 1 step closer to the Platform SDK/DDK (IMO thats what w32api
> should be aiming at, a clone of anything in the microsoft Platform SDK
> that someone wants to cleanroom clone and also anything in the DDK
> that anyone wants to cleanroom clone)
> Anyone else think that keeping the undocumented stuff seperate from
> the regular documented stuff is a good idea? bad idea?
We will do as planned and put undocumented stuff in the NDK
More information about the Ros-dev