Re: [Evolution-hackers] Switching from Autotools to CMake for core evolution products

[Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com>]

On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 18:10 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:23 PM, 藍挺瑋 <lantw44 gmail com> wrote:
> > 於 週三，2016-10-05 於 09:33 +0200，Milan Crha 提到：
> > Can we have a common way to enable GTK-Doc installation in modules
> > using CMake? In modules using Autotools, we have --enable-gtk-doc
> > which is recognized by every module supporting generating
> > documentation with GTK-Doc . However, we have two important modules
> > using CMake, Evolution (including Evolution-Data-Server) and
> > WebKitGTK+, but they require different options to enable GTK-Doc.

        Hi,
I agree that the consistency is "good to have". I chose the name to
stay as close to the one from autotools as possible. Similarly with
other offered configure options.

> gtk-doc now ships a CMake module upstream:
> <https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk-doc/tree/cmake>.
>
> I adapted this from existing code in the Firtree project:
> <https://github.com/rjw57/firtree/tree/master/cmake/Modules>
>
> It would be nice if Evo and WebKitGTK+ could switch to using that. It
> may need some improvements; I used it successfully in a couple of
> projects (proprietary ones, sadly) but I don't know how much use it
> has had elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I do not recall what failed for me when I tried to use
it in the time I've been adding the functionality into the libical.
It's couple months ago, it's likely that the things changed on the
GtkDoc side meanwhile, I really didn't give it a try any time recently.

Similarly to WebKit, I currently do not plan to bump GtkDoc dependency,
but it doesn't mean I'm against it. As I begun above, the consistency
is good to have.
        Bye,
        Milan