Feature/premakedeps

[Ohjurot]

Changelog: Feature: Adding preliminary (non documented, dev-only) support for premake5 deps (PremakeDeps).
Docs: Omit

Fixes #13275 (Based on PR #13350)

Features

• Implements lua file generation for premake consumption (New feature for 2.0)
• Supports multi build with changing architecture and configuration (New for the premake tool)
• Generates a lua file with variables (includedirs, libdirs, ...) per configuration (Based on existing implementation, adapted for multi build and new architecture)
• Generates a lua file with functions (Just build/compiler setup, linker setup and both) for automatic premake project setup per package and profile/config (Breaks compatibility with conan1 but is way more flexible)
• Generates a lua file with functions (see previous) for automatic premake project setup per package
• Generates a global conandeps.premake5.lua file with functions (see previous) for automatic premake project setup.
• Has fallback capabilities to release when no fitting conan configuration is available

Status
WIP-Status: Code works and has been covered with a basic unit test. Documentation is still required.

Checklist

• Refer to the issue that supports this Pull Request.
• If the issue has missing info, explain the purpose/use case/pain/need that covers this Pull Request.
• I've read the Contributing guide.
• I've followed the PEP8 style guides for Python code.
• I've opened another PR in the Conan docs repo to the develop branch, documenting this one. Delayed until full premake5 support is implemented.

^{Note: By default this PR will skip the slower tests and will use a limited set of python versions. Check here how to increase the testing level by writing some tags in the current PR body text.}

[Ohjurot]

@memsharded In #13350 you have mentioned "As long as we don't document it, it should be very doable". So, shall I wait with writing the documentation until I implement the full premake toolchain? So that you can merge this PR and get the PremakeDeps support in as soon as possible, but without officially stating it trough the documentation?

[memsharded]

@memsharded In #13350 you have mentioned "As long as we don't document it, it should be very doable". So, shall I wait with writing the documentation until I implement the full premake toolchain? So that you can merge this PR and get the PremakeDeps support in as soon as possible, but without officially stating it trough the documentation?

Yes, exactly, it is possible to merge it to allow easier preliminary testing for early adopters, contributors and maintainers, without being too constrained to change things. I'd wait until we have the basic pieces working together and a bit of our own testing.

[memsharded]

Some minor comments and doubts, please have a look.

Then, would you say this is ready to move forward, merge (quietly, no docs yet) it, and keep working on the other pieces?

[Ohjurot]

Some minor comments and doubts, please have a look.

Then, would you say this is ready to move forward, merge (quietly, no docs yet) it, and keep working on the other pieces?

Yes, as soon as we have discussed the two open points this should be ready for a silent merge.

[Ohjurot]

@memsharded can you please give me an update

[memsharded]

Sorry, I have been buried by a lot of other things. Just assigned this for next 2.0.4 so we can prioritize it.

[memsharded]

Merged! It will be in next 2.0.4