tinyalsa: conan2

[Ahajha]

Specify library name and version: tinyalsa/all

• I've read the contributing guidelines.
• I've used a recent Conan client version close to the currently deployed.
• I've tried at least one configuration locally with the conan-center hook activated.

[Ahajha]

Looking at changes in tinyalsa, 2.0.0 seems to be just bugfixes from 1.1.1. For ease of converting the recipe, it now uses the CMake file provided in 2.0.0. Hopefully the changes are small enough and enough time has passed that anyone using this package would be willing to upgrade. Disregard

[uilianries]

@Ahajha Please, do not remove a major version from conandata.yml, it may break users: https://github.com/conan-io/conan-center-index/blob/master/docs/adding_packages/sources_and_patches.md#removing-old-versions

[Ahajha]

Please, do not remove a major version from conandata.yml, it may break users

I originally thought that the changes between 1.1.1 and 2.0.0 were small, it seems I somehow overlooked a lot of changes. I did feel odd about it, I can go back and re-add 1.1.1, unfortunately I can't use CMake for that version :(

[uilianries]

I originally thought that the changes between 1.1.1 and 2.0.0 were small, it seems I somehow overlooked a lot of changes. I did feel odd about it, I can go back and re-add 1.1.1, unfortunately I can't use CMake for that version :(

@Ahajha you can split the recipe in separated folders like 1.x and 2.x. For real example: https://github.com/conan-io/conan-center-index/tree/master/recipes/mosquitto

[Ahajha]

@Ahajha you can split the recipe in separated folders like 1.x and 2.x. For real example: https://github.com/conan-io/conan-center-index/tree/master/recipes/mosquitto

I have both using the Makefile for now, I'm wondering if the consistency is better or the simplicity/"easy correctness" of CMake for 2.0.0 is better. It's working as is, I think it's probably okay.

[uilianries]

The patches are okay, as more or less they are integrated already to the upstream and the latest release is from 2021.

[uilianries]

Why did you remove with_utils options? Is it not available for 1.1? Please, consider not removing an option, it affects directly the package ID: https://github.com/conan-io/conan-center-index/blob/master/docs/faqs.md#can-i-remove-an-option-from-a-recipe

[Ahajha]

The utils get built regardless, it's just a matter of if they get packaged. As far as I can tell it's a conan-only thing. So to me it seemed odd to have an option for something where including it unconditionally didn't affect anything.

[Ahajha]

I can change it to be deprecated instead, per the link.

[uilianries]

Please, revert that change, people still can decide if they want or not executables installed too.

[Ahajha]

I'll revert the change, though I'm still confused as to what utility it provides. The executables are tiny (combined total of 160 Kb on my machine). Removing them doesn't save any significant amount of time or space, and keeping them shouldn't break anything, the only possible thing is the environment variables.

[conan-center-bot]

Conan v1 pipeline ✔️

All green in build 9 (e1a70ebcfcc3e809224056fce872a19f3f5d62f6):

• tinyalsa/2.0.0:
  All packages built successfully! (All logs)

• tinyalsa/1.1.1:
  All packages built successfully! (All logs)

---

Conan v2 pipeline ✔️

Note: Conan v2 builds are now mandatory. Please read our discussion about it.

All green in build 9 (e1a70ebcfcc3e809224056fce872a19f3f5d62f6):

• tinyalsa/2.0.0:
  All packages built successfully! (All logs)

• tinyalsa/1.1.1:
  All packages built successfully! (All logs)

[uilianries]

LGTM