On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Matthew Pitts <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
I would say to give it a try and reserve judgement. If you already know
autotools then I think you'll find cmake very easy to adjust to.
What kind of changes are you planning? If it's just source changes then it
should be pretty easy (or obvious how) to make changes to the
CMakeLists.txt file in src/ to add or remove source files.
A related question... Is it really autotools or just makefiles? I noticed
that several of the auxiliary directories just have simple makefiles, not
autotools generated files. I have not yet tried to replace those so they
should continue to work (or not work) as they currently do.
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
