On Jun 29 21:35:25, Jan Stary wrote:
>> This is a port of opencore-amr, which is an implementation
>> of the Adaptive Multi Rate speech codec that seems to be
>> used by many modern mobile devices (such as my android).
>> (This is my first new port - please be gentle.)
>>
>> The main motivation is to have AMR support in SoX
>> (which will be the next step if this goes in).
>> Neither libsndfile nor libaudiofile support AMR.
>>
>> Tested on amd64 and i386.
>>
>> Issues:
>>
>> (1)
>> It comes with the Apache License 2.0; I am not sure
>> what that means for the PERMIT_* variables; I asked
>> upstream, but someone here surely knows.
>>
>> (2)
>> With USE_LIBTOOL=Yes, the build fails in a strange way (see below).
>> Without USE_LIBTOOL, everything goes fine. But I don't know enough
>> about libtool to spot the exact problem (see my guess below, though).
> It builds fine with USE_LIBTOOL=gnu.
Yes it does. Thank you.
I didn't know I could use USE_LIBTOOL=gnu.
The Makefile template says
# Programs that uses libtool should use this option,
# unless there is a really good reason not to.
#USE_LIBTOOL = Yes
and only mentions 'gnu' as a possible value for CONFIGURE_STYLE
(which I did). Did I miss something? Is the possibility of
USE_LIBTOOL=gnu documented somewhere else?
On Jul 01 14:04:47, David Coppa wrote:
> Fixed some stuff in your port: have a look.
Thank you; I merged your modifications into a new version:
http://stare.cz/~hans/.tmp/opencore-amr-0.1.2.tar.gz
What exactly does the "0.0" mean in SHARED_LIBS?
SHARED_LIBS += opencore-amrnb 0.0
SHARED_LIBS += opencore-amrwb 0.0
Running 'make plist' suggests this; but if I build the software natively
(outside of the ports), the libraries are built and installed as *.so.0.2
Why is the above better than
SHARED_LIBS += opencore-amrnb 0.2
SHARED_LIBS += opencore-amrwb 0.2
Thank you for your time
Jan
