<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
OK, so this is option (2), where every exported change by the
developers requires a compilation and repository check-in under both
windows and linux. I don't like reintroducing cygwin and linux into the
developers' requirements; presumption of knowledge notwithstanding. But
of course the other options have issues, too. I'll make the necessary
changes to Olympus to support this.<br>
<br>
BTW, We've put a lot of effort into making Olympus easier to use, but I
don't think of any current or near-team Olympus developer as an "end
user". I don't think Olympus is polished or robust enough yet, and as
an open-source and modular system, it encourages research development
in all its components.<br>
<br>
-Thomas<br>
<br>
Alex Rudnicky wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:9C0D1A9F38D23E4290347EE31C22B0AF0200128D@e2k3.srv.cs.cmu.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cmculmtk comes with compiled windows native and linux versions
(available from sourceforge). There is no reason for an "end user" to
work with the source code for this tool, so I think it's ok to just
distribute binaries. (This is already necessary for the pronunciation
code.)
Cmuculmtk had to change because it contained library calls no longer
supported by mainstream linux/gnu systems. It was also not structured
all that well (I suspect that the latter is what's killing the VS
build.)
If someone does want to alter the code, the presumption should be that
they know enough to deal with Cygwin and perl (if they don't, they
shouldn't be fooling around down at that level).
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:olympus-developers-bounces@LOGANBERRY.srv.cs.cmu.edu">olympus-developers-bounces@LOGANBERRY.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:olympus-developers-bounces@LOGANBERRY.srv.cs.cmu.edu">mailto:olympus-developers-bounces@LOGANBERRY.srv.cs.cmu.edu</a>] On Behalf
Of TK Harris
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:41 AM
To: Benjamin Frisch
Cc: Olympus Developers
Subject: [Olympus developers 29]: Re: cmucltk changes
A test framework doesn't help what I see are the real problems with (1)
and (2), which are that developers need to develop in multiple
environments regardless of whether the code changes involve os
dependencies. This is already a problem for the sphinxes. As David says,
"Every time I switch to Windows an angel dies". Even if an angel doesn't
die, he's wasting his time. More often, I'm guessing that the build just
gets broken, as happened recently with Alex's changes.
(1) If we want to keep VS build stuff, in order to do any file structure
changes (including simply adding a file) developers will need to have
windows, visual studio, and linux (or cygwin).
(2) This option is even worse. If we want to use binaries, _any_ change
will require the developer to compile in windows and linux.
Perhaps this is a good test case for a forth option: cmake or its ilk.
-Thomas
Benjamin Frisch wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am not in favor of introducing a Cygwin dependency as well; however,
I understood the original message to imply that the rebuilt binaries
do not require Cygwin to run. If the former is true I am ok with a VS
Windows build being pushed off until 2.3; however, I think 1 is ideal
if Cygwin/Unix support for the cmulmtk can be retained along with VS
build support with relative ease in time for 2.2. (Perhaps, we need a
test framework for this?)
Ben
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Antoine Raux <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:antoine@cs.cmu.edu"><antoine@cs.cmu.edu></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Until we have a Linux version of Olympus, I'm in favor of not
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->introducing a
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cygwin dependency, so I prefer solution 1), although I don't know how
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->hard
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">that would be...
antoine
TK Harris wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Recent changes have broken the Visual Studio build of the cmucltk,
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->which
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Olympus depends on. The stable 2.1 branch of Olympus is pegged to an
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->older
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">version of the toolkit, so for now only the trunk is affected. I see
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->that
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Alex has improved the cygwin build so that it's well integrated with
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->the
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">linux builds, and yet builds native Windows executables, also it
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->looks like
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">there are binaries checked in.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We can either
1) fix the VS build
2) just use checked-in executables
3) require cygwin for an Olympus build
I don't really like any of these options; they each have some
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->negatives.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I'm open to suggestions.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-Thomas
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>