pcl/fix with_openmp and with_opencv options not being applied #28991
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Changes to recipe: recipes/pcl/1.14.x
Closes #28985
Motivation
The
with_openmpandwith_opencvoptions for thepclpackage are not being applied when set viaconanfile.txt. Even when explicitly enabling these options, the resulting PCL build behaves as if they are disabled.Details
Options such as:
are ignored during configuration. CMake output confirms that OpenMP and OpenCV support are not enabled, and PCL prints warnings during configuration indicating that OpenMP is disabled.
This change aims to ensure that the option values passed from profiles or conanfile.txt are properly forwarded to the build system and not overwritten in recipe logic (e.g. config_options, configure, or CMake toolchain integration).
Additionally, I discovered that although with_opencv defaults to True in the recipe, OpenCV is never actually enabled nor installed because the current CMake option propagation and dependency checks prevent the condition from ever being met. So even when explicitly enabling with_opencv, the build proceeds without OpenCV support, making the default value misleading and ineffective. Maybe we should consider simplifying this mechanism to prevent confusion?
Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important to help the team prioritize, thanks!