Conflict with Bitcoin Core's '/usr/local/include/bitcoinconsensus.h` about namecoin-core

[phelixbtc]

If you like you could create a PR about this.

[unsystemizer]

I would if I knew what the fix is (a repo-wide S&R bitcoinconsensus.h => namecoinconsensus.h?) and how to do it :-)

[phelixbtc]

Ah, right, it is a bit more complicated than I thought. I can do it but would like to check with @domob1812 first: git move bitcoinconsensus.h/.cpp + S&R?

[domob1812]

I strongly prefer to avoid such things unless they are really needed. But if this causes real issues when installing, that's of course such a reason. :)

Your suggestion sounds good. Make sure to really use git mv instead of moving "outside of Git", though.

[phelixbtc]

@unsystemizer what exactly are you doing when you get the error? Maybe it would also be possible to change things so that the header is not installed globally. My Linux experience is lacking here...

[unsystemizer]

I have bitcoin-core 0.11 on this system.
I guess I could use a different prefix parameter to change the install location for the package (say, prefix=/opt) or not run Bitcoin Core on the same system. But if we wanted a solution that works for everyone regardless of their environment, namecoinconcensus.h seems like a good way.

[phelixbtc]

I have bitcoin-core 0.11 on this system.

And now you simply try to install namecoin core if I understand correctly. OK, from my limited understanding it then seems we need to change it globally.

[unsystemizer]

Well, yes, we'd need to change it globally unless we want to document that as a known limitation (that it can't coexist with Bitcoin Core installed in default location or unless --prefix= is used to build and install in separate location).

[phelixbtc]

@unsystemizer please check it out.

[unsystemizer]

Built and installed (alongside Bitcoin Core 0.11) from your fork (with these fixes included):

$ /usr/local/bin/namecoind --version
Namecoin Core Daemon version v0.11.99.0-gf25ff0f
Copyright (C) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core and Namecoin Developers

[phelixbtc]

Sweet. @domob1812 Please verify this is the proper way for smooth maintenance. I excluded docs but I just noticed I replaced it in a comment in one case.

[domob1812]

@phelixbtc: Yes, looks good.