So basically anyone that has extensive knowledge of how Autotools work and have been able to work with the system just fine should be forced to learn a whole new set of tools so they can continue working with this? Doesn't sound fair to me for some odd reason. And yes, I know enough about them (Autotools) to do things that can be done with cmake; now, whether those things can all be done natively or not is something I will leave to other developers to talk about.
Matthew Pitts N8OHU Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Freetel-codec2] codec2-dev different results with cmake vs. autotools From: Steve Sampson <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 11-Jun-2013 13:48 To: [email protected] CC: Press-on - Delete the old and press on with the new. Ignore the galley, who will never step onto the playground anyway. On 6/11/13, Richard Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Joel Stanley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> However, I do not see a reason to remove the autotools build system >> for codec2, as it works without issue. > > > 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... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
