[Olympus developers 33]: Re: cmucltk changes

[Alex Rudnicky]

I consider dialog system developers to be end users in this context,
just as they are end users of ASR technology.

VS is the problem dependency since it forces people to spend real money
(~$700 for "Pro") in order to use our software.

 

Alex

 

 

From: Thomas K Harris [mailto:tkharris at cs.cmu.edu] 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:59 AM
To: Alex Rudnicky
Cc: Olympus Developers
Subject: Re: [Olympus developers 30]: Re: cmucltk changes

 

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.

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.

-Thomas

Alex Rudnicky wrote: 

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> <mailto: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
			 
			 
			      
			        

		    
		      

	  
	    

 
 
 
  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/olympus-developers/attachments/20080505/b8501f1f/attachment.html