On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Joel Stanley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Richard Shaw <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > The first one shows side by side comparison, the second graph is the
> 'diff"
> > I believe.
>
> On my system, there is no reported difference between hts1a cmake vs
> autotools.
>
> $ gcc --version
> gcc-4.7.real (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) 4.7.3
>
> 3.8.0-19-generic amd64 on a i7-2620M, running 64bit userspace.
>
> However, I do not see a reason to remove the autotools build system
> for codec2, as it works without issue.
>
> The debate should be weather cmake is a better fit for the FreeDV gui or
> not.
I know it's not your intention, but as the author of 100% of the cmake
stuff, it's hard to understand statements like these... Why would anyone
choose a patchwork of disconnected makefiles versus a single build option
that works (or can work) for everyone?
The fact that the autotools build for codec2 works is really not a good
reason to keep it. I don't think it makes sense to have two different build
systems for projects under the same "umbrella" nor two different build
systems for the same project that have to be kept in sync.
Additionally the cmake build does things the autotools build does not, such
as allow cross-compilation, which is not trivial for codec2 because of the
codebook generation and optional installation of the example code as end
users don't really need it if they're just building codec2 as a dependency
for freedv.
The autotools build for fdmdv2 is a mess which was my original reason for
creating the cmake build and also does things the autotools build does not
including optional build and static linking of pretty much all dependencies
and building of a NSIS installer for windows.
I guess I'm trying to understand the resistance to moving to the cmake
build.
Is it because:
- People are comfortable with autotool and don't understand cmake?
- The cmake build doesn't work as well as the autotools build? (I've fixed
everything that I've gotten test reports for, which have been few)
- Some other reason I haven't described here?
Thanks,
Richard
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
