On Friday 17 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > > On 2/16/2012 1:24 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > Actually I expected I would prefer this over the fixed names, but now > > > that I've done it and look at what Config.cmake.in file I have to > > > write, I think I liked the previous version with the fixed names > > > (CONFIG_HELPER) better. I think it was easier to do, a simple scheme. > > > > I think the fixed names are better/simpler too. I'm not fond of > > "CONFIG_HELPER" specifically. The information stored in them is > > about the *package* that the file is configuring, which is why > > I originally proposed the prefix "PACKAGE_". The INCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR > > is where the *package* goes, not where the config helper is/goes. > > > > It's also the same as the package version file input/output > > variable names. > > I looked a bit around cmFindPackage. > It has a parameter "CONFIGS", it has a "Config mode" and the documentation > and error messages use "configuration file". > So, I'm not that sure that using "PACKAGE" instead of "CONFIG" is really > better (the branch I pushed uses "PACKAGE", but I could change this again).
Ok, so we stay here with "PACKAGE", also in the light of the new "CONFIG" keyword for find_package() ? 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
