kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Simon Wells <swel024@xxxxxxxxx>]

well in its current state its not going to build an "invalid
configuration" as it forces KICAD_SCRIPTING to ON, but there is a
question whether an explicit on should override an explicit off, or
lets say down the line that scripting becomes on by default as does
the action menu. If someone explicitly states KICAD_SCRIPTING to OFF
and that setting will be ignored when the other settings are implicit

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/18/2017 11:56 AM, Jean-Samuel Reynaud wrote:
>>
>> 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 ?
>
> Yes!  KiCad should not build an invalid configuration.  The config step
> should fail.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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,
>>