Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Let CMake be more strict? #45

Closed
NeroBurner opened this issue Feb 17, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #47
Closed

Let CMake be more strict? #45

NeroBurner opened this issue Feb 17, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #47

Comments

@NeroBurner
Copy link
Contributor

the cmake build script I wrote has all the backends enabled, but still works if the dependencies for the backends are missing. A backend can be disabled with the -DDISABLE_<BACKEND>=Yes configuration flag.

I don't like this fallback behavior. I'd rather have -DWITH_ALSA=Yes and fail with an error if alsa was not found. Per default I would enable all the backends and let the user disable them one by one and have the user have an active decision.

@quiniouben how does the autotools build system handle missing dependencies? With fallback or strict?

@quiniouben
Copy link
Owner

quiniouben commented Feb 17, 2020

@quiniouben how does the autotools build system handle missing dependencies? With fallback or strict?

It is strict, and I would also prefer that cmake behaves so.

NeroBurner added a commit to NeroBurner/vban that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2020
replace the DISABLE_XXX flags with WITH_XXX flags
- DISABLE_ALSA -> WITH_ALSA
- DISABLE_PULSEAUDIO -> WITH_PULSEAUDIO
- DISABLE_JACK -> WITH_JACK

Default the DISABLE_XXX flags to true.

If one of the dependencies of an enabled dependency is missing exit with
error.

Fixes: quiniouben#45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants