Hi Ervin, hi Tom, Thanks for your replies. So, if there are no further objections then I put making hamlib mandatory on the top of my list.
In fact it seems that even xmlrpc is compiled in the packaged versions. But that I would not touch now. 73, Zoli On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > Hi Zoli, > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:52:33PM +0100, Csahok Zoltan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently tlf has an optional hamlib support. I guess it's optional due > > to historical reasons: hamlib may have been not always available or unstable > > in the past. > > Now hamlib is the de-facto standard rig control library for Linux. > > A quick check of official debian tlf packages shows that in all versions > > hamlib support is compiled in. > > it's just one distribution. There are several others, which > contains Tlf, eg. Gentoo (maintainer is Thomas), SuSE, Slackware, > Arch, and many others. > > > The question: could we make hamlib support mandatory? > > Interesting idea, and I don't know any other reason to do that, > just what if there is a distro, which doesn't distribute the Tlf > with hamlib. > > (After a quick search, in case of most distros I didn't find Tlf, > or if the distro contains, that is a very old version of Tlf, > eg. 1.1.3...) > > > The advantage of this change is that all code parts not using hamlib > > could be disposed of (incl. #ifdef's). Functionally there should be no > > drawbacks, > > as rig control can be disabled with the -r option. > > Note, that you should disable the RIG control if you place a > comment sig to the lines in logcfg.dat, before the RIG_ options. > > > What do you think? Is there a use case for tlf compiled without hamlib? > > I think we should do - but I'm curious about the opinions of > other users. > > > 73, Ervin > HA2OS > _______________________________________________ Tlf-devel mailing list Tlf-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tlf-devel
