On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:14:21PM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 18:32 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:06:45AM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote: > > > For some reason when the build system was converted to > > > automake by this patch > > > > > > "Convert the build system to autotools" > > > > > > the name of the output binary for crec was changed > > > from 'crec' to 'crecord'. > > > > > > This patch corrects it back to 'crec' > > > > That implies crecord is incorrect, I do not think so. > > > > Can you explain why you would want to rename this back. > > > > The motivation for this was to make it proper like cplay. Also similar to > > aplay and arecord. > > > > I don't really see a need for that, or why "crec" is wrong. > > In any case if you did want to change that name > > a) it should be an explicit patch, not sneaked in as an undocumented and > unexpected side-effect of some other patch This part I agree. Unfortunately this was not done transparently... > b) the source file should have been renamed to match, if the name "crec" > is a massive problem then it should also be a problem that > "cplay.c->cplay" but "crec.c->crecord". If it's ok to have the source > file called crec.c what's wrong with the binary it builds being called > crec? I dont mind renaming source as well.. I think bigger question is should we continue crec or crecord, my preference is latter. > c) it's a nuisance to have to change existing test systems and apps that > launch "crec", or to create symlinks from crec->crecord. Yeah agree, lets decide on one and stick to that, forever hopefully :) -- ~Vinod _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
