Richard, David and Bruce,
I respect the choice made to cut over to cmake, but that doesn't mean I like
the idea of having to learn something new to be able to do the projects I have
in mind that will be using Codec2, especially when one of those projects
already uses Autotools and having that capability in Codec2-dev will simplify
the work for me. I really don't want to have to fork Codec2 just to keep
Autotools; the effort of keeping it in sync with various developers changes
would be almost as much of a drain on my time as learning cmake on top of the
two build systems I already have to work with.
Matthew Pitts
N8OHU
________________________________
From: Richard Shaw <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Freetel-codec2] codec2-dev different results with cmake vs.
autotools
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Matthew <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
No, just having the knowledge of autotools isn't sufficient, it must also be
supported on a continuing basis, which doesn't appear to have been the case.
The current autotools for fdmdv2 didn't work for many. I know cmake better than
I know autotools and was willing to put in the ~50 hours I've spent so far to
make things work and have improved much:
- NSIS installer for windows
- Easy cross-compilation from linux to windows using imported targets for
codebook generation on the native architecture.
- Optional static building of almost every dependency on an individual basis
-- Bootstrap static building of wxWidgets 2.9, which has been non-trivial.
It doesn't matter which tool is better if one of them doesn't "work" or the
advantages never implemented.
Ok, now that my griping is out of the way... I don't think the learning curve
for cmake is nearly as steep as autotools. It's more "script-like" and anyone
who already knows an existing script language (perl, python, bash) should be
able to read through it and figure things out enough for most things that would
likely change (addition or removal of source files), etc. If you run into
problems, that's what the mailing list is for and I'll gladly help out.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
