From: Ian S. <ian...@st...> - 2004-01-09 16:13:56
|
VXL-maintainers are unlikely to want to support a separated VNL, but it appears that there is a demand for just VNL binaries. We could deal with both requirements by putting a "BUILD_VNL_ONLY" option into the CMakeLists. I guess it depends what people need, but it could build just vcl, netlib, vnl and vnl_algo. Comments? Ian. > -----Original Message----- > From: vxl...@li... > [mailto:vxl...@li...]On Behalf Of > Simon Perkins > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:07 PM > To: 'Andrew Fitzgibbon'; 'Mark Galassi'; nor...@ui... > Cc: 'Wheeler, Frederick W (Research)'; 'vxl-list'; 'Simon Perkins'; > Simon Perkins > Subject: RE: [Vxl-users] RE: VXL binaries for Windows? > > > For us, the main issue is just size. VXL is a big piece of > software. The > linux RPM we just made that includes all of VXL is 85MB! That's a > non-trivial amount of (mostly unused) code to insist that our > customers > download. > > A second issue is compilation time. Compiling just VNL takes about 6 > minutes for us. Compiling all of VXL takes about 40 minutes. > > Cheers, > > Sy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew Fitzgibbon [mailto:aw...@ro...] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 2:19 AM > > To: 'Mark Galassi'; nor...@ui... > > Cc: 'Simon Perkins'; 'Wheeler, Frederick W (Research)'; 'vxl-list'; > 'Simon > > Perkins' > > Subject: RE: [Vxl-users] RE: VXL binaries for Windows? > > > > > > VXL has failed us if people want to extract vnl and ship it > separately. > > The whole point of vxl was that someone could install it > all, and just > > use a part of it without having to use all of it. > > > > Why is it easier to install ITK than VXL? > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. > Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering > advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. > Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html > _______________________________________________ > Vxl-users mailing list > Vxl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vxl-users > |
From: Andrew F. <aw...@ro...> - 2004-01-09 17:06:47
|
I think it might be better to have switches for each of the core libraries. We always intended that people should be able to build only part of VXL, so it might make sense to configure the various parts separately. I.e. have BUILD_NUMERICS # Build VNL and all dependencies BUILD_IMAGING # vil BUILD_UTILITIES # vpl, vul, vbl BUILD_SERIALIZATION # vsl BUILD_VIDEO # vidl BUILD_GUI # vgui BUILD_GEOMETRY # vgl, vcsl, vtol and so on. It also means that new users see immediately that they need not add all libraries, and then Mark and Simon's build would be far less than 80MB. The curious can later easily add libraries. In my opinion, this is a particular selling point for VXL: because we've taken care to keep modules separately buildable, we should make it easy to configure it. I also feel it's better to use the descriptive names (Numerics, Serialization, etc) rather than the easy-to-type names vnl, vsl and so on. And I commend my .02 euros to the house. A. |
From: Peter V. <Pet...@es...> - 2004-01-09 17:25:09
|
> BUILD_NUMERICS # Build VNL and all dependencies > BUILD_IMAGING # vil > BUILD_UTILITIES # vpl, vul, vbl > BUILD_SERIALIZATION # vsl > BUILD_VIDEO # vidl > BUILD_GUI # vgui > BUILD_GEOMETRY # vgl, vcsl, vtol > > I also feel it's better to use the descriptive names > (Numerics, Serialization, etc) rather than the easy-to-type > names vnl, vsl and so on. Agreed. -- Peter. |