Re: Surveying interest regarding CMake

On 29.12.2021 at 18:41, Horváth V. wrote: > On 2021. 12. 29. 14:02, Christoph M. Becker wrote: > >> This is why I suggested to postpone Windows support for now. > > This would have to be done either way and I prefer to work from the host > OS on my computer, especially since the Windows side of things is what's > messy right now and I don't like things being unnecessarily messy for no > good reason. > > Once I have things packaged via Conan as well, I will have a better idea > of how to adapt the existing ways of people consuming dependencies. Here > I'm thinking about the name of libraries that should be used in CMake if > there is no proper CMake package found. > > As an example, the Conan package of WinEditLine provides an edit.lib > file when built as a static library, which follows the idiomatic way of > naming this file on Windows, however the php-sdk provided binary is > called edit_a.lib, which tries to mimic the UNIX way of naming things. > In the above case I would have to first do a find_package(wineditline > NO_MODULE) to try finding the Conan generated config files and after > that I would need to use the other find_*() commands with all known > names in use as search parameters, then decide whether it's actually a > static or a shared library. Things get painful once you don't have the > convenience of CMake configs encoding crucial details about your > dependencies. Ah, right! The naming scheme of libraries used to build PHP and PECL packages is uncommon, but in use for a long time, and it's even documented[1]. I'm not sure if we can change it for a minor PHP version. And simply renaming the libraries won't work, since that breaks the "link" to the .pdb files. Not sure how to solve this. :( [1] <https://wiki.php.net/internals/windows/libs#general_compiling_guidelines> Christoph