Closed lighta closed 6 years ago
I think I should split this. There no much worth change anyway I'd just update the doc and the cmake imo.
libpqxx as a submodule is not perfect although a cmake could be added to built it even if this is not ideal as your cmake will probably drift from the subrepo. Issue is that not lot of distri currently have the 5+ has default : https://repology.org/metapackage/libpqxx/versions (which actually only conflict due to c++-17, a wrapper for that library could also be considered or that the DAO are built in c++-14. Another simple solution is to fork his repo and to add cmake to built from in there. Once 5+ widespread you won't really need that repo...
Finally for the config, I tend to prefer an override concept such as git and co.
libpq/libpqxx is not buildable easily with CMake on Windows at all I think that libpqxx 4 with bugfixes from 2012 should be okay though.
As for CMake, I forgot to include the comment, I didn't get why we should make "base" packet version default (that is actually the version that nobody will use, it's just a base to derive "real" packet versions). I also don't get the reordering of the check, especially if you cache a default value in that cmake.shared file. The check won't ever be triggered, because of the cached value. Also, note that cmake.shared is included from many places (like sublibraries) many times.
Smalls various change to facilitate compilation and runtime.