Re: [Tlf-devel] tlf without hamlib?

[Csahok Zoltan]

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
>