Fwd: gpsd support

[Dario Lombardo]

Andreas said he is OK with applying them, so I will do that.
>
> OK :)

> However, if I read your code correctly, it still seems to me that there is
> a fixed compile time decision if gpsd or built-in gps support is to be
> used.
>
> I think it would be better to keep it a runtime decision, i.e.
>
> 1) if gpsd headers/library available during compilation,
>    build support for _both_ gpsd and built-in gps into the program,
> 2) if they are not available, only include the built-in gps support.
>
> That's easy to do. I can maintain the original gps interface, so old code
doesn't need to be fixed, and choose the support to use from an internal
state.


> The decision which method to use should be a config file option.  Please
> make
> sure that a config file configured for built-in gps support will work with
> both
> versions of the program.
>
> A config file requesting the use of gpsd support should make the program
> abort if it was compiled without gpsd support included.
>
> Not sure to agree. Execs from layer23/misc don't rely on config files.
Probably that's due to the low number of switches used. I think that, even
if cell_log options are increased, we can still use cmd switches. Do you
agree?

Ciao
Dario.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/baseband-devel/attachments/20110217/07c75fcb/attachment-0001.htm>