On Tuesday 16 August 2011, David Cole wrote: > 2011/8/16 Alexander Neundorf <[email protected]>: > > On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> > There is now a branch AutomocForQt on the cmake stage. > >> > > >> > Docs and a test are still missing. > >> > >> It has a test now. Docs are still missing. > > > > Now it also has docs. > > > > I haven't merged it to next yet. > > > > Any objections ? > > > > Alex > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cmake-developers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers > > Brad and I just read through some of your recent commits. In the > Tests/CMakeLists.txt there's logic that looks like this: > > IF(NOT QT4_FOUND) > FIND_PACKAGE(Qt4) > IF(QT4_FOUND) > ... > ENDIF() > ENDIF() > > Could you change it to this? > IF(NOT QT4_FOUND) > FIND_PACKAGE(Qt4) > ENDIF() > IF(QT4_FOUND) > ... > ENDIF() > > That way, when we have builds of CMake where Qt is on (to build > cmake-gui) it will run the test. As it stands now, looks like it will > not run the test when we already *know* we have Qt available...
Hmm, yes. Not sure what I thought when writing this. > After that, go ahead and merge to 'next' and see how it looks on the > dashboard. Done. Can a merge to next actually also be undone ? Alex
_______________________________________________ cmake-developers mailing list [email protected] http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
