Speex dev - Dec 2007 - [PATCH] Add Visual Studio 2008 Prject files

What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file?  Ship
two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good.

It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, in my opinion.
MS changes their IDEs and project-file formats more often than most people
change their underwear.  The odds that any given open-source project will
actually compile without any tweaking are basically zero anyway, so you might as
well make the build steps as clear and obvious as possible.

Only half-joking...

-- john

  -----Original Message-----
  From: speex-dev-bounces@xiph.org [mailto:speex-dev-bounces@xiph.org]On Behalf
Of Keith Kyzivat
  Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:26 PM
  To: Jean-Marc Valin
  Cc: speex-dev@xiph.org
  Subject: Re: [Speex-dev] [PATCH] Add Visual Studio 2008 Prject files


  On 11/29/07, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca> wrote:

    qmake is just insanely limited in terms of the structure of your code
    (can't have an executable if you have a library, ...). On top of that,
    I've had way too many cases where it just "forgot" to
recompile files
    when a header file changed (causing strange segfaults) that I'm never
    trusting it anymore.

  Ahh good to know!
  I'll steer clear of it from now on then.
  I wasn't ever that fond of it to begin with, but from the experiences I
have had with it, it's more pleasant to use than dealing with MS project
files (granted, I was staying away from Windows for that project anyway).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20071130/c9e2758f/attachment.html

John Miles wrote:
> What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file?
> Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good.
> 
> It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users,
> in my opinion.
I second that. When I played around with Speex a while ago, I just
dumped the Speex source files into a .dsp file (Visual Studio Project),
and built that. For another environment, I made a 25 line Makefile
(essentially, a SOURCE = ..... line plus the auto-dependency example
code from the GNU make manual).

The only "problem" is to find out what files are needed for the
library
and which are superfluous (i.e. test/demo programs with their own
main()). A minimal Makefile would help to document that, and enable
people create projects, with minimum effort, for all sorts of
environments nobody ever heard of.


  Stefan

On Dec 3, 2007 1:24 PM, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de>
wrote:
> John Miles wrote:
> > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak
file?
> > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good.
> >
> > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users,
> > in my opinion.
>
> I second that. When I played around with Speex a while ago, I just
> dumped the Speex source files into a .dsp file (Visual Studio Project),
> and built that. For another environment, I made a 25 line Makefile
> (essentially, a SOURCE = ..... line plus the auto-dependency example
> code from the GNU make manual).
>
> The only "problem" is to find out what files are needed for the
library
> and which are superfluous (i.e. test/demo programs with their own
> main()). A minimal Makefile would help to document that, and enable
> people create projects, with minimum effort, for all sorts of
> environments nobody ever heard of.
For those people building on Windows, please use the automake/autoconf
build system as your reference. The .c files needed to build the speex
libraries are spelled out quite concisely and explicitly in
libspeex/Makefile.am.

Creating yet another build system for speex would, IMHO, only serve to
obfuscate and cause yet more build-related chatter on this list.

Pete

On 12/3/07, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de> wrote:
> John Miles wrote:
> > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak
file?
> > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good.
> >
> > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users,
> > in my opinion.
>
> I second that. When I played around with Speex a while ago, I just
> dumped the Speex source files into a .dsp file (Visual Studio Project),
> and built that. For another environment, I made a 25 line Makefile
> (essentially, a SOURCE = ..... line plus the auto-dependency example
> code from the GNU make manual).
>
> The only "problem" is to find out what files are needed for the
library
> and which are superfluous (i.e. test/demo programs with their own
> main()). A minimal Makefile would help to document that, and enable
> people create projects, with minimum effort, for all sorts of
> environments nobody ever heard of.
You sure missed with this approach that you have to define _USE_SSE
to have SSE optimized build, that you could use USE_ALLOCA if you
do not use _USE_SSE, etc, etc. You have to dig around for some amount
of time to find all such things.

Just to indicate my position:
1) MinGW build support is good. It should be there.
2) I _will_ maintain VS6, VS2003 and VS2005 projects for Speex as long
as we use Speex in sipXmediaLib. It would be great to have them checked
in to Speex repo, if no - we will keep them in our. Reasons - handiness,
ability to link statically, support for WinCE.
3) Project files make compilation much easier for people how want Speex
to "just work" and want to use svn version (e.g. because of bugfixes).
Also they reduce number of questions in mailing list from the legion of
VS users.
4) I have not so much time to flame on this and definitely will not change
my position easily.
5) It's up to Jean-Marc to make final decisions.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.

SIPez LLC.
SIP VoIP, IM and Presence Consulting
http://www.SIPez.com
tel: +1 (617) 273-4000