Harald Sitter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Luigi Toscano > <luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it> wrote: >> Harald Sitter wrote:
>>> The reason this puzzles me is that the relocatable code for Windows >>> would work just fine for Linux and OSX, from what I can tell there is >>> no real downside to it besides the additional code, which we need >>> anyway. On the other hand, the conditional treatment of Windows gives >>> the Windows code branch substantially less implicit run exposure (i.e. >>> most devs/testers aren't on Windows, so fewer people build the >>> relevant if-branch). >>> >>> With that in mind: how about we drop the harcoding code path and make >>> the Windows code path the default and have kdoctools assets always be >>> relocatable? >> >> No problem with relocatable code, in general, but my personal problem with >> that code is that I have to rethink every time what it's doing and think >> twice >> when I had to change it (as I did now with the review above), because of the >> way it works. It may be a limitation of mine, but is there some way to make >> what it's trying to do in a more simple way? > > Mh, yes. Relativity calculation is always a strain on the mind for > sure. The way I see it this is fairly isolated in the cmake logic > though and ideally only needs figuring out once, so it shouldn't need > changes that often? I mean, from a usage point of view when working on > a dtd or xsl you use the same cmake-level variable regardless of the > path being absolute or relative anyway. On the cmake-level the > principal difference between absolute and relative is that the > variable is converted into a relative one using a `file(RELATIVE_PATH > ...)` call. > > Do you have a specific example of where you had trouble wrapping your > head around it? > > FWIW, I think the cmake code at hand would actually be easier on the > eyes without the if branch and some simplification. If there are no > objections to turning the build relocatable by default I'll go ahead > and prepare a diff for review. Then we can talk about tweaking that > should it be necessary. Even without the if branch it would be still complicated. But I have no objections to discuss and approve a patch which unifies the code and also avoids that opensuse-specific patch. Ciao -- Luigi