I just added that gem to https://community.kde.org/Guidelines_and_HOWTOs/CMake/FAQs.
On 25 May 2017 06:08, "Luca Beltrame" <lbeltr...@kde.org> wrote: Il giorno Thu, 25 May 2017 09:25:02 +1200 Ben Cooksley <bcooks...@kde.org> ha scritto: [Quoting Ben but responding to Thomas, since I'm not subscribed to kde-buildsystem] > > complained about the quality of Kwave's build system in the last 18 > > years in such a way and nobody had a serious problem with the > > dependencies. The major problem with the approach you use is that CMake aborts with a fatal error in configure stage as soon as a missing dependency is encountered. There may be more, but you don't know, because it aborts. So it's like a cat and mouse game unless you have everything installed. The correct way to do so is to avoid REQUIRED in find_package() calls and use instead set_package_properties() to set what is required, and what is optional. Please take a look at any other KDE software project to see how it's done. A tl;dr version would be: include(FeatureSummary) [...] find_package(foo) set_package_properties(foo PROPERTIES TYPE REQUIRED PURPOSE "Required to bar the foo.") [... at the end of the CMakeLists.txt] feature_summary(WHAT ALL FATAL_ON_MISSING_REQUIRED_PACKAGES) The advantage? CMake will configure things till the end and *then* list *all* the missing dependencies in one fell swoop. Much easier for packaging, too. > > *POLITELY* and with reasonable arguments. But if I only get comments > > like "fuck you, all your stuff sucks" - I WILL DEFINITELY NOT > > CHANGE ANY SINGLE LINE FOR YOU !!! THe fact that the original mail had a harsh tone does not warrant a same, or an increased one. Can we just focus on fixing the problem? Note: as a packager, I rely a lot on CMake output as well as READMEs. Failing stuff like I described above makes my work (and probably many others') harder. -- Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team GPG key ID: A29D259B
