Refactor packaging

[adriendelsalle]

Description

Refactor packaging:

• add a dedicated package structure for gbs(-core) and extensions
  • create a gbs::core target for main lib, gbs::<ext> for extensions
  • add a CMake configs
• refactor headers installation to get core and ext libs installing in <prefix>/include/gbs
  • core lib installing directly in <prefix>/include/gbs
  • ext libs installing in <prefix>/include/gbs/<ext> (e.g. <prefix>/include/gbs/mesh)
  • refactor includes according to this change, and remove unnecessary include_directories
• refactor CMakeLists.txt files for reflect dependencies (includes and linked libs)
  • remove unnecessary link_directories
• fix build errors
  • add <cstddef> in gbslib.h
• refactor Python bindings to install in Python sources
• update win and unix conda recipe scripts (not tested yet)

Note: this is a massive PR I would be happy to discuss
Note: there is no change in project implementation

[ssg-aero]

First of all, let me tell you I appreciate your efforts.
I agree project structure can be improved.
But it turns out impossible to make a code review.
Some files are modified then moved, so diff are hard to track.

Can we process step by step with a talk about priority first ?

[ssg-aero]

I'm puzzled by the issue with std::size_t, during last build for Linux I didn't notice anything although I used gcc12

[ssg-aero]

Maybe we should consider adding in gbs/gbslib.h inside gbs namespace using size_t = std::size_t; ?

[elac-safran]

This seems reasonnable to me, since size_t is fairly standard.
If you are to include it in a top-level header, though, I would advice creating a dedicated header file types.h, say, that would be included in gbslib.h.

[ssg-aero]

This seems reasonnable to me, since size_t is fairly standard. If you are to include it in a top-level header, though, I would advice creating a dedicated header file types.h, say, that would be included in gbslib.h.

moreover some types are already defined here, so moving them into a specific place could be a good idea

[adriendelsalle]

I'm puzzled by the issue with std::size_t, during last build for Linux I didn't notice anything although I used gcc12

outchy, maybe I missed something then, a C header or something let me have a look

Maybe we should consider adding in gbs/gbslib.h inside gbs namespace using size_t = std::size_t;

Sounds good in gbs namespace

moreover some types are already defined here, so moving them into a specific place could be a good idea

let's do that!

First of all, let me tell you I appreciate your efforts.
I agree project structure can be improved.
But it turns out impossible to make a code review.
Some files are modified then moved, so diff are hard to track.
Can we process step by step with a talk about priority first ?

Totally, sorry for this huge PR. When it comes to package refactoring there are a LOT of changes and it's quite impossible to review. Let's schedule a chat when possible!

[adriendelsalle]

just including <cstddef> did the trick for size_t, I'll rework this PR to remove renaming and reduce changes

[adriendelsalle]

I just forced pushed to:

• remove renaming of size_t in std::size_t
• remove auto formatting of tests (sorry for that I missed that my clang-format install did it!)
• break in 3 commits/steps the refactoring

Most changes are about CMakeLists.txt files and moving headers in sudirs to reflect the include tree. I hope it looks better now!

[elac-safran]

just including <cstddef> did the trick for size_t, I'll rework this PR to remove renaming and reduce changes

Now that you mention it, that is indeed what I usually do.