Anyone using -DDISABLE_ALL_OPTIONAL_SUBDIRECTORIES=TRUE, -DBUILD_foo ?

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Thursday 28 February 2013 Feb, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> so macro_optional_add_subdirectory and the related cmake variables are 
> currently conflicting with that productset system I am working on.
> 
> Looking at the old stuff I wonder how useful it is in such a big project, like 
> Calligra now is. The BUILD_foo variables are generated from the foldername, 
> prepending "BUILD_". So this breaks once different products are done from 
> folders with the same name. Will happen e.g. with folders like "part", "app", 
> "view", "core". Also folder names will not be as expressive as the product 
> names need to be, like Jarosław mentioned in the original thread: 
> "BUILD_variables" would need "VARIABLES" as product name, not very expressive.
> 
> So I would propose to drop any usage of macro_optional_add_subdirectory and do 
> another system, based on the productset idea.
> 
> But I wonder if anyone might be relying on what 
> macro_optional_add_subdirectory currently provides for Calligra. And thus 
> would need some backward compatibility for now. Does anyone know?
> 
> Other comments regarding this wanted as well.

I think there are people activately using things like -DCREATIVEONLY=ON -DBUILD_KARBON=OFF, so for the apps having individual settings makes sense. I don't think anyone (but me, for certain windows builds) uses the ability to rm -rf a subdirectory and have macro_optional_add_subdirectory do the right thing. I also don't think there's anyone who does -DDISABLE_ALL_OPTIONAL_SUBDIRECTORIES=TRUE because that will break pretty much everything -- it would even disable the text shape.

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt
http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl