2011/6/6 Alexander Neundorf <[email protected]>: > On Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:21:43 PM Eric Noulard wrote: >> 2011/6/4 Alexander Neundorf <[email protected]>: >> > Hi, >> > >> > KDE is getting more modular, so instead of a few huge "modules" there >> > will be much more independent libraries. >> > We'll try to make all those libraries install proper FooConfig.cmake >> > files. Currently most of these libraries install already pkgconfig >> > pc-files. This means they (would) have to install two such files, one >> > for pkgconfig and one for cmake. >> > >> > Proposal: I'd like to add a command line switch to cmake, so you can call >> > it like >> > cmake --find_package Foo --Dmode=COMPILE --Dtoolchain=GNU >> > and it will >> > * try to find Foo only in config-mode >> > * if found, it will check that it has been found via FOO_FOUND >> > * if so, it will check that for FOO_INCLUDES and FOO_LIBRARIES >> > * create the command line arguments for the compiler from that >> > * print "-I/opt/foo/include" to stdout >> > >> > This would make these installed Config-files usefull also for non-cmake, >> > simple Makefile-based projects. >> > >> > Opinions ? >> > I think I'll start working on this in the next days. >> >> I think that adding more and more command line options to the "cmake" >> command may make it bloated. >> >> Wouldn't be possible to add separate cmake scripts to the cmake >> distribution with simplified command line args which e.g. >> >> cmake-config --cflags Foo >> which would transparently call some cmake scripts like that >> cmake --Dmode=COMPILE -Dmodule=Foo -P cmake-config-script.cmake > > You mean "separate scipts", not "separate cmake scripts", right ?
Both. cmake-config would be a [portable] script (or even minimalistic binary), which basically call a cmake script (for portability). > Under Unix this could be shell scripts, under Windows probably batch files. > I don't know what the other cmake developers think of this. > > Under Unix it would also be possible to create a symlink "cmake-config" to > cmake and check for that. But that also doesn't work under Windows AFAIK :-/ Yes I know, on windows I bet you can install the same binary/script with differents names (instead of symlinking) and the script/binary could check its name in order know what to do this is what busybox do. This would generate a possibly small waste of disk space on Windows. -- Erk Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org _______________________________________________ cmake-developers mailing list [email protected] http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
