On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 09:49:03AM -0400, Brad King wrote: > On 05/11/2013 11:09 PM, Wojciech Knapik wrote: > > > I recently ran into the issue of GLOBs being unsafe for source lists and > > wrote a very simple piece of code to fix the problem. A generalized > > version of that code is available here: > > > > https://github.com/wknapik/scm/blob/master/code/cmake/Modules/RegenerateSourceListGlobs.cmake > > > > It seems to work quite well, at least on Linux. If you guys think this > > is worth turning into an official module, I can make any changes > > deemed necessary. I'm not up for the maintainer role though. > > It looks like you're using a custom target to re-run CMake with > dependencies on the source directories themselves.
Is it just me, or did that sound like Clippy ?;] > I think this is suitable as an example in a Wiki but not as an > official module. > > This would be much better done as a change to CMake's implementation. Oh, definitely. I'm not a C++ coder though, so I wrote a CMake module ;] > We already generate a rule to re-run CMake when CMakeLists.txt and > other files read by CMake change. One could add an option to add > directories to the dependencies of that rule too. Look for the > AddCMakeDependFile method for example. If you go this route please > post a proposed interface here first before diving into the effort > of a patch. I hope someone does make the effort to implement this. Using GLOBs can reduce the size of your CMakeLists by an order of magnitude and is just so convenient... > > PS. The wiki page mentioned in Modules/readme.txt says you should send > > stuff like this to cmake-developers, but the email referred in the first > > sentence says you should send new module proposals to the cmake list. I > > guess the wiki could use an update. > > Which wiki page? The module maintainer one is: > > http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake:Module_Maintainers > > and that one says cmake-developers. The email linked in the first sentence - "Call for maintainers" - says "cmake at www.cmake.org". BTW, would you say the module is ok to use ? Do you see any problems with this implementation ? I need that feature, so I'm planning to rely on the module for the time being at least. thanks, WK -- 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