Re: [Xlog-discussion] first 0.6 beta release

[Joop Stakenborg]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 18:44:37 +0100
Stephane Fillod <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 03, 2002, Joop Stakenborg wrote:
> > I have been thinking about modes, but what about soundcard based software
> > (MT63, rtty with linpsk, gmfsk and twpsk). I have my rig tuned to SSB mode,
> > but I am not actually working in SSB.
> 
> Not a problem, this is up to the operator. Fortunately, the computer is
> not to replace him or she anytime soon. hi!. 
> I agree with you, xlog won't be able to guess when you're operating a
> soundcard based mode, and it's acceptable. However, when you know you are
> operating USB phone, then clicking on the "Mode" button may help.
> The same goes for other modes, it's only when the operator decides it.
> 

Okay. that's sensible. I will add a mode button in beta2 together with an
RST button.

> > That's a nice idea. We could calculate the avarage power during the QSO
> > and log that. I will leave it for later, when we have the flexible file
> > format, so we can add a power column. Will put it in the todo list.
> 
> No need for average. The same applies to RFPOWER and signal strenght.
> It's done when the operator decides it. However, calculating averages
> can make interresting statistical data.
> 

There will probably be a great deal of statistic which can be retrieved
from the rig. Maybe we can add some of these to a future version.

> Talking about flexible file format, I'm almost done. I have a patched
> beta version that's able to load 0.4 and 0.5 old file format, and saving
> to 0.5 format. It is also able to open multiple logs at the same time.
> flexible format is on its way. Coming up next are twlog and ADIF format,
> and why not Cabrillo.
> 

That's nice. Glade to see you have something working.


> 
> > > I've started, somewhat works, but I'm wondering if using libtool would be
> > > better (using .la). A patch should follow soon.
> > 
> > Too bad I can't help out. I am not familiar with libtool.
> 
> There's nothing much to know about libtool in our case. Just to add a
> macro or two in configure.in, and the we would be able to use LIBADD
> in Makefile.am and specify the .la file instead of messing with LIBS.
> Perhaps, let's stick to the LIBS since it works fine so far.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>  Stephane F8CFE
> 

Thanks,

Joop PA4TU


-- 
Joop Stakenborg
FOM-instituut Rijnhuizen
tel. 030-6096862