| Summary: | Build Issue:DBUILD_CRASHTEST should be renamed to WITH_CRASHTEST | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | TDE | Reporter: | Alexander Golubev (Fat-Zer) <fatzer2> |
| Component: | tdebase | Assignee: | Timothy Pearson <kb9vqf> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | bugwatch, fatzer2, kb9vqf |
| Priority: | P5 | ||
| Version: | R14.0.0 [Trinity] | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Compiler Version: | TDE Version String: | ||
| Application Version: | Application Name: | ||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 1300 | ||
| Attachments: |
Fix patch
patch |
||
+option( WITH_CRASHTEST "Enable crash test program" ${BUILD_ALL} )
probably should be
+option( WITH_CRASHTEST "Enable crash test program" ${WITH_ALL_OPTIONS} )
(In reply to comment #1) > +option( WITH_CRASHTEST "Enable crash test program" ${BUILD_ALL} ) > > probably should be > > +option( WITH_CRASHTEST "Enable crash test program" ${WITH_ALL_OPTIONS} ) yes, sure. I read your original explanation several times. I'm confused why we would want to make the change. If the BUILD_ prefix implies being able to build as a standalone app, then perhaps we should leave the option be. Better to support building separate packages. Yes? (In reply to comment #3) > I read your original explanation several times. I'm confused why we would want > to make the change. If the BUILD_ prefix implies being able to build as a > standalone app, then perhaps we should leave the option be. Better to support > building separate packages. Yes? yes, but if so it should be e.g. moved to a separate subfolder or added some other conditions. Sorry, If I describe it unclear but it's quite hard for me... Here are some principles I see for BUILD_* options: [this list can be incomplete] 0. You can build with cmake -DBUILD_A=ON and with no another options. 1. You can build with cmake -DBUILD_A=ON -DBUILD_B=ON 2. You can build with cmake -DBUILD_A=ON and later build separately with cmake -DBUILD_B=ON. 3. If there is an internal dependence BUILD_B on BUILD_A, you still can do it like described in (1) and (2), but in (2) order of build make difference. If order is wrong the error must occur on configuration phase. 4. If there is no internal dependencies the (2) may be successfully built in any order. 5. Methods (1) and (2) must produce !exactly! the same result. e.g. same and identical files, and no difference in functionality. Also it is good if each option adds exactly one subdirectory, but it's possible not everywhere... If at least one of this conditions can't be satisfied the WITH option should be used. So, now rule (5) is broken cause -DBUILD_CRASHTEST=ON builds nothing if -DBUILD_DRKONQI=OFF. Created attachment 1042 [details]
patch
I agree with Darrell on this one; i.e. the original behaviour is correct and the patch would yield inconsistent usage of the BUILD_ versus WITH_ options. Closing as invalid. |
Created attachment 1012 [details] Fix patch Why so: BUILD_ prefix indicates that module can be build alone, separately to others. e.g. it should be possible to build with only option -DBUILD_CRASHTEST. WITH_ prefix means that some package can be build with or without optional feature. Here such package is drkonqi. PS: There is also an issue like that with tsak but I need to discuss it with Tim firstly.