kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jean-Samuel Reynaud <js.reynaud@xxxxxxxxx>]

For this particular point, I do exactly the same as
KICAD_SCRIPTING_MODULES option.

But for both option (KICAD_SCRIPTING_MODULES and
KICAD_SCRIPTING_ACTION_MENU) you mean that it's better to fail the
configuration if the options are not compatibles ?




Le 17/01/2017 à 20:53, Simon Wells a écrit :
> slightly off-topic (again?) but it just came to mind.....
> 
> currently if option X requires Y then Y is forced on if not already
> on. is there a way to differentiate between an explicit OFF and an
> implicit OFF that we could use to force on if implicit but error if
> explicitly off.
> 
> This might be useful if a user/packager/compiler is not aware that X
> requires Y but he can't/doesn't want Y for whatever reason.
> 
> i am not sure how much sense i am making so an example maybe
> 
> USER decides to build themselves, he doesn't want or have python but
> the action menu sounds interesting.
> USER does cmake -DKICAD_PYTHON_SCRIPTING=NO -DKICAD_ACTION_MENU=ON.
> kicad build fails due to lack of python. USER gets mad (this ones not
> too bad as he can see in build log it was forced on)
> 
> if USER had python (but still didn't want it built in to kicad)
> 3months down the line USER has an issue, uses copy version info and
> wonders why PYTHON_SCRIPTING=ON when USER said no.
> 
> or from a packagers perspective
> PACKAGER likes to add all new features but has a set of packages which
> don't require python
> PACKAGER does does cmake -DKICAD_PYTHON_SCRIPTING=NO -DKICAD_ACTION_MENU=ON.
> PACKAGER doesn't read log as its really long and requires effort
> PACKAGER distributes packages saying "No python required, includes action menus"
> USER downloads PACKAGERs package and doesn't have python and complains
> because it doesn't run
> 
> Both of these would make it hard to glimpse at the cmake log unless
> the packager makes it available in the latter case to see that it was
> forced on (or dig into the source to find out why)
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Jean-Samuel Reynaud
> <js.reynaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> yes i was trying to subtly imply that :)
>> ok, find attached the patch with the about box updated ;)
>>
>> Regards,