relocatable kdoctools

[Luigi Toscano]

Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Luigi Toscano
> <luigi.toscano at 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