[Olympus developers 30]: Re: cmucltk changes

[Alex Rudnicky]

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: olympus-developers-bounces at LOGANBERRY.srv.cs.cmu.edu
[mailto:olympus-developers-bounces at LOGANBERRY.srv.cs.cmu.edu] 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:
> 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 <antoine at cs.cmu.edu>
wrote:
>   
>> Until we have a Linux version of Olympus, I'm in favor of not
introducing a
>> Cygwin dependency, so I prefer solution 1), although I don't know how
hard
>> that would be...
>>
>>  antoine
>>
>>  TK Harris wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Recent changes have broken the Visual Studio build of the cmucltk,
which
>>>       
>> Olympus depends on. The stable 2.1 branch of Olympus is pegged to an
older
>> version of the toolkit, so for now only the trunk is affected. I see
that
>> Alex has improved the cygwin build so that it's well integrated with
the
>> linux builds, and yet builds native Windows executables, also it
looks like
>> there are binaries checked in.
>>     
>>> 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
negatives.
>>>       
>> I'm open to suggestions.
>>     
>>> -Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>     
>
>