> I think it's clear now that the current state of UHD doesn't include all > the features that you want, so I think we can close out this thread. > For the record, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for additional > features here, and a runtime-disabling of the fastpath messages is not > something that is terribly complicated to implement. However, please > consider that while *your* particular application would like to have a > UHD feature that doesn't exist, this hasn't come up before, and we > balance feature requests (of which we get a lot) based on frequency of > request, perceived importance, etc. We are very happy to add features > that people need, but we can't anticipate all possible things people > could potentially ask for.
This is exactly what I want to confirm. The main reason I'm complaining and the reason I'm extremely surprised though, is that this was a feature that exists in 3.10 (fastpath message can be disabled at runtime there). The usecase of the feature is even acknowledged when the new logging system is designed (the email I linked above mentioned that suppressing the output was the main use case) while somehow it is removed in 3.11. In another word, this is a regression rather than a missing feature that people could potentially ask for. >> (And if one has to compile the library, why does the ettus uhd PPA > exists....) > > I'm not sure if this is a legitimate question, or if you're complaining > that the PPA is not configured to your particular taste, but the purpose > of the PPA is to provide *one* standard configuration of UHD as a binary > state. Other users might require other configure/compile time settings > (maybe disable certain boards, change default paths, etc.), and in that > case, same as yours, recompiling is the correct option. Providing > binaries for every version *and* every combination of UHD settings would > be nice, but it's also not feasible. Exactly. But when someone is asking explicitly about whether something can be done at "runtime" (see the title of my first email), suggesting a compile time option shouldn't really be a solution. The reason I'm asking about the purpose of the PPA is that I believe answers from developer are usually treated as recommended approach/usage pattern. Therefore, the fact that you mentioned compile time option as a solution of any kind to a user made me wonder if the PPA for ubuntu (or any distro binary package) is actually meant for production use or if any serious users are expected to compile their own binary (and maybe all packages using libuhd is expected to bundle the library that's configured to fit the need for that package). That would be a valid (though my least favorate) software distribution model and I do want to know the answer since it'll greately change how we use the library. > > Regards, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > USRP-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com _______________________________________________ USRP-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ettus.com/mailman/listinfo/usrp-users_lists.ettus.com
