-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Ja2Export target and get it to build on C++17 #88
Conversation
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ | |||
option(BUILD_JA2EXPORT "Build the Ja2Export tool." ON) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
does this mean its by default built?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yes
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ | |||
option(BUILD_JA2EXPORT "Build the Ja2Export tool." ON) | |||
|
|||
if(BUILD_JA2EXPORT) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(I dont know best practices)
wouldnt it make more sense to skip the inclusion in the root CMakeLists instead of here?
would also make all what-to-build decisions be in a central location
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like having the exporter tool decide whether to build configure itself or not. but there is a case for moving the option(...)
to the root CMakeLists file.
the github workflow release would fail with this tool being built and the exe being put in the output dir next to the lang exes, as right now only one exe is expected is this exporter lang/app based? if not it probably makes sense to not build it at all for the lang/app builds and instead introduce another parallel build process and zip it as its own artifact |
the github workflow uses msbuild at the moment so it would, in fact, not fail with this change. :-) |
the msbuild workflow variant does not even build the tool ;) but the cmake workflow variant would |
nice little tool
7f41f84
to
eba30ea
Compare
nice little tool