Skip to content
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

Broken comparison of boolean values in CMakeLists.txt #1101

Closed
mojca opened this issue Jan 6, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Broken comparison of boolean values in CMakeLists.txt #1101

mojca opened this issue Jan 6, 2019 · 4 comments
Milestone

Comments

@mojca
Copy link

mojca commented Jan 6, 2019

The boolean options in CMake should not be compared with STREQUAL, but as boolean values instead, so that even -DUSE_LIBWRAP=yes would work, for example, see the CMake documentation.

For example, the following

if (${USE_LIBWRAP} STREQUAL ON)
	set (MOSQ_LIBS ${MOSQ_LIBS} wrap)
	add_definitions("-DWITH_WRAP")
endif (${USE_LIBWRAP} STREQUAL ON)

would probably better be written as

if (USE_LIBWRAP)
	set (MOSQ_LIBS ${MOSQ_LIBS} wrap)
	add_definitions("-DWITH_WRAP")
endif (USE_LIBWRAP)
@slewsys
Copy link

slewsys commented Jan 7, 2019

The problem is aggravated by the fact that the Build Dependencies section of Mosquitto's readme.md explicitly uses "yes" and "no" boolean values, contrary to the tests in CMakeLists.txt as per Mojca's comment.

@mojca
Copy link
Author

mojca commented Jan 8, 2019

Of course those examples are for the regular Makefiles, not for CMake. The only way to kind of clarify that would be to repeat the same options as they were supposed to be used in CMake. I admit that I was never aware of the validity of yes/no until @slewsys pointed it out.

@ralight ralight added this to the 1.5.6 milestone Jan 10, 2019
ralight added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 10, 2019
Closes #1101. Thanks to Mojca Miklavec and Andrew L. Moore.
@ralight
Copy link
Contributor

ralight commented Jan 10, 2019

Thanks for the report and example. It's also nice to have a change which brings a functional improvement and makes it more readable all at the same time.

Closed in 8fce261 , which will be part of 1.5.6 soon-ish.

@ralight ralight closed this as completed Jan 10, 2019
@mojca
Copy link
Author

mojca commented Jan 10, 2019

Thank you very much for the super quick fix.

ralight added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 8, 2019
Closes #1101. Thanks to Mojca Miklavec and Andrew L. Moore.
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 7, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants