From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Koul Subject: Re: [PATCH] crec: Correct name of output binary to crec Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:26:03 +0530 Message-ID: <20161118035603.GH2698@localhost> References: <1479294405-17471-1-git-send-email-rf@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20161116130241.GY3000@localhost> <1479302061.18450.24.camel@rf-debian.wolfsonmicro.main> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CB9266937 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 04:46:36 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1479302061.18450.24.camel@rf-debian.wolfsonmicro.main> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Richard Fitzgerald Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org 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