On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 10:15 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > >> In hindsight that name was poorly chosen. I'd really like to see > >> "package" in the name because they are "package configuration files". > >> Otherwise there is no indication it has anything to do with > >> find_package. > > > > Well, it has to do with Config files :-) > > Okay, so it can have "PackageConfig" in its name since they are > "package configuration" files. > > > So which one ? > > 1) configure_config_file() + write_basic_config_version_file() > > 2) configure_package_file() + write_basic_config_version_file() > > 3) configure_package_file() + write_basic_package_version_file() > > > > Personally, I prefer 1) and 3) over 2). > > include(CMakePackageConfigHelper) # "CMakeConfigHelper" is ambiguous IMO > configure_package_config_file(...) > write_basic_config_version_file(...) # no need to change name
Ok, so we have 1) configure_config_file() + write_basic_config_version_file() 2) configure_package_file() + write_basic_config_version_file() 3) configure_package_file() + write_basic_package_version_file() 4) configure_package_config_file() + write_basic_config_version_file() 5) configure_package_config_file() + write_basic_package_version_file() 6) configure_package_config_file() + write_basic_package_config_version_file() My choice would be: 1), 5), 6), 3), 4), 2) So, 5) ? Alex -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
