Build with CMake

[gdfast]

Hi,
We're looking to integrate TANK into a (mostly C++) project that we build using the CMake build system, so it would help if TANK could also be built with the CMake build system

[markpapadakis]

@gdfast Apologies for the delayed response. TANK currently doesn't include a CMakeFile in the distribution, but it should be easy to create one.

[gdfast]

@markpapadakis no worries about the delay. And yeah, I don't think it will be difficult. I was just trying to see if you opposed it. One of my colleagues or I may put up a pull request.

[markpapadakis]

@gdfast that'd be fantastic. Thank you :)

[gregschrock]

@markpapadakis, I've been working on getting a PR up with the CMake and SPEC files we've used for distributing TANK. But I'm hitting a snag I'd like your input on.

As context, we've build an RPM that can be installed on a system and provides the tank and tank-cli executables along with a tank-client.so. Then there's a -devel RPM that provides all of the headers necessary for building code that uses the client.

My issue is with the headers. Your Makefile has logic that checks if the build is being run on your dev system. If that is the case, you're assuming that the switch library is installed. Otherwise, you use the LEAN_SWITCH flag. However, throughout the code, many switch headers are included through absolute includes which fail if either 1) switch isn't installed on the system and 2) all of the switch directories aren't added to the global include path (which doesn't seem ideal).

To work with lean switch, I've needed to alter many of the switch includes to be relative rather than absolute which removes the need to add to the system include path (e.g. #include "Swtich/date.h" rather than #include <date.h>). Of course, this will make so lean switch is always included even if switch is installed on the system.

So I'm wondering if you have an approach that has avoided this issue or suggestions about how I should proceed. I do have a couple potential solutions that I think are pretty far from ideal. But I wanted to get the conversation started.

[markpapadakis]

@gregschrock Apologies for not replying sooner. Been busy and I missed this issue.
I suggest you wait for a little while longer for the new client, CLI tool, and TANK service branch to appear on GH. The client has been written from scratch and those and other issues you have raised have been addressed. Thanks !

[gregschrock]

Thanks @markpapadakis! Sounds good. I look forward to seeing the changes.