VCPKG upstream integration #29
Comments
|
Nice, I wanted to post these vcpkg ports into the vcpkg central repo but I still couldn't find enough time for it. 🙂 You did a great job on this. Nice to see. I'm gonna address these patches so we can entirely remove them. I also removed this comment because it's not relevant anymore, it was left there after refactoring. I spent a few minutes on this yesterday. I have done the |
|
Work in progress still, just to inform, I have refactored I also added all I'll let you know when I'm done because I'll need you to test it as you have a nice GitHub repo where you are testing much more than I do. |
|
I think everything is fixed, all patches will be able to removed (still not merged to the main branch, will be in the next release). Also, I would wait a while before finally posting it to the |
|
Great progress today, I have finished The |
|
I have it done, I had to move The currently deployed TinyORM |
|
A new release pushed today |
|
Also, how are running your workflows? Any fails? @SchaichAlonso |
|
I have created PR at microsoft/vcpkg#34640, also a new release was pushed today v0.36.2. |
all buildsystems can build the consumer, though I only used tinyorm-0.35.0, as I haven't updated the port yet. I noticed, though, that passisng -DORM=Off -DTOM=Off -DTOM_EXAMPLE=Off to cmake causes the setup logic to emit a diagnositc confirming the 3 were disabled, but then installing orm/tiny/model.hpp nevertheless. |
I will check it if I can find something. Sry, I accidentally edited your reply 😂 |
This is good, there are minimal changes in later releases. |
I tried now and can't reproduce it, I tried single-config debug build and install. The code responsible is here it can't install. What was your config., single-config, multi, vcpkg install? |
vcpkg's cmake-ninja default setup: config-x64-freebsd-out.log Corresponding |
You mean |
|
Because orm is enabled in default features here |
Yes. A cmake invokation by VCPKG might fail to pass the correct options to tinyorm due to bugs in the portfile or vcpkg logic, but tinyorm's cmake should be consistent between it's diagnostic and the installed features. I.e. if it reports ORM is disabled, it shouldn't install orm components, while a build with the default options should install ORM only if it's configure step didn't report it was being disabled. |
|
I check it tomorrow, these features are reported by |
|
But vcpkg and default-features it already sounds like a pain 😂 and I haven't even started testing 😎 and you can double this feeling in manifest mode |
|
The port from microsoft/vcpkg#34640 can provision a TinyORM that works with all build systems here, though I suppressed the unsupported statement of the portfile. The issue with the header file seems to persist. |
With which header file? I don't remember any issue with a header file. |
Now I tried it and can't reproduce it, tried with HelloWorld example app. and this vcpkg.json, I also removed this line from vcpkg.json. Then looked inside the build folder Looked also into the And the following for the release install install-x64-windows-rel-out.log |
|
I forgot, I also tried vcpkg classic mode like |
|
Integrated by microsoft/vcpkg#34640 |
microsoft/vcpkg#31087 is requesting to integrate tinyorm into upstream vcpkg's centralized ports repository.
I have prepared a vcpkg fork which contains a tinyorm port deriving from the overlay port that is part of TinyORM as well as a TinyORM consumer project that uses the tinyorm package generated with the vcpkg fork. It can run the simplistic test on all primary supported vcpkg platforms other then Mac OS X using GitHub hosted runners.
The patches applied address
Further, I modified the microsoft CI ruleset to assert Mac OS X builds fail ( #28 ). However I'm not sure what to do about the other targets blacklisted in vcpkg.json:9 (which is copy-pasted from the manifest variant's same line). Are these platforms known not to work, or just untested?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: