[CMake] subject changed: question about which bugs you're talking about
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Wednesday 11 January 2012, Patrick Spendrin wrote: >> Am 02.01.2012 18:11, schrieb David Cole: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Replies requested. Short replies only. Read on. Just a short reply >> > with bug numbers or links to the bugs is all we need here. Please move >> > specific discussions into the bugs themselves or start a new thread to >> > talk about it... Replies on this thread should just be a collector for >> > bug numbers. >> > >> > Example one-line reply: >> > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=12647 >> > >> > We are aiming for quarterly releases from now on, scheduling them >> > every 3 months. That would make the next release of CMake version >> > 2.8.8, scheduled to have an "rc1" release candidate on Wed. March 7, >> > 2012 -- just 9 weeks from this Wednesday. >> > >> > If you have a particular issue that you think should be fixed for >> > inclusion in 2.8.8, please bring it up within the next two weeks. >> > Ideally, each issue will be discussed as needed on the mailing list to >> > come to any consensus about what should be done to fix it, and then an >> > entry in the bug tracker may be used to keep it on the radar screen, >> > and to track activity related to it. You can see what's on the roadmap >> > for this release here: >> > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/roadmap_page.php?version_id=90 >> > >> > Patches are always welcome. Patches that include testing of any new >> > features, or tests that prove a bug is really fixed on the dashboards, >> > basically any patch with testing is preferred over a patch with no >> > testing. Also, if you are *adding* code, then you also probably need >> > to add *tests* of that code, so that the coverage percentage stays as >> > is or rises. >> > >> > Please discuss issues here as needed, and add notes to existing issues >> > in the bug tracker that you are interested in seeing fixed -- we will >> > be looking at the mailing list and activity in the bug tracker to help >> > prioritize the bug fixes that will occur in the near future. >> >> My personal issues are: >> http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=10994 >> and connected to it: http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=11153 >> The handling of the windows drive root is not consistent/wrong, which >> leads to both errors. I checked yesterday but the patches I added in >> 10994 do lead to an endless loop in 11153. I will try to come up with a >> better patch in the coming days. > > IMO these are quite important issue, since they issue causes every > FooConfig.cmake file installed by any of the KDE libraries to contain extra > code to work around this issue, which makes them less readable and harder to > write (and easier to get wrong). > > 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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake Are you talking about http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=10994 and http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=11153 ?? How do these require extra code in your config files? I would think putting the CMakeLists file at the root of a drive would be quite uncommon. Why is the workaround mentioned in the bug insufficient? -- 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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] subject changed: question about which bugs you're talking about
On Wednesday 11 January 2012, David Cole wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 January 2012, Patrick Spendrin wrote:
> >> Am 02.01.2012 18:11, schrieb David Cole:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Replies requested. Short replies only. Read on. Just a short reply
> >> > with bug numbers or links to the bugs is all we need here. Please move
> >> > specific discussions into the bugs themselves or start a new thread to
> >> > talk about it... Replies on this thread should just be a collector for
> >> > bug numbers.
> >> >
> >> > Example one-line reply:
> >> > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=12647
> >> >
> >> > We are aiming for quarterly releases from now on, scheduling them
> >> > every 3 months. That would make the next release of CMake version
> >> > 2.8.8, scheduled to have an "rc1" release candidate on Wed. March 7,
> >> > 2012 -- just 9 weeks from this Wednesday.
> >> >
> >> > If you have a particular issue that you think should be fixed for
> >> > inclusion in 2.8.8, please bring it up within the next two weeks.
> >> > Ideally, each issue will be discussed as needed on the mailing list to
> >> > come to any consensus about what should be done to fix it, and then an
> >> > entry in the bug tracker may be used to keep it on the radar screen,
> >> > and to track activity related to it. You can see what's on the roadmap
> >> > for this release here:
> >> > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/roadmap_page.php?version_id=90
> >> >
> >> > Patches are always welcome. Patches that include testing of any new
> >> > features, or tests that prove a bug is really fixed on the dashboards,
> >> > basically any patch with testing is preferred over a patch with no
> >> > testing. Also, if you are *adding* code, then you also probably need
> >> > to add *tests* of that code, so that the coverage percentage stays as
> >> > is or rises.
> >> >
> >> > Please discuss issues here as needed, and add notes to existing issues
> >> > in the bug tracker that you are interested in seeing fixed -- we will
> >> > be looking at the mailing list and activity in the bug tracker to help
> >> > prioritize the bug fixes that will occur in the near future.
> >>
> >> My personal issues are:
> >> http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=10994
> >> and connected to it: http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=11153
> >> The handling of the windows drive root is not consistent/wrong, which
> >> leads to both errors. I checked yesterday but the patches I added in
> >> 10994 do lead to an endless loop in 11153. I will try to come up with a
> >> better patch in the coming days.
> >
> > IMO these are quite important issue, since they issue causes every
> > FooConfig.cmake file installed by any of the KDE libraries to contain
> > extra code to work around this issue, which makes them less readable and
> > harder to write (and easier to get wrong).
> >
> > Alex
> >
> Are you talking about http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=10994 and
> http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=11153 ??
>
> How do these require extra code in your config files?
>
> I would think putting the CMakeLists file at the root of a drive would
> be quite uncommon.
AFAIK all/most of our KDE-on-Windows developers do this using subst.
Our installed Config.cmake files (not so many yet, but there will be much
more) have code like this:
get_filename_component(rootDir
${CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR}/@relInstallDir@
ABSOLUTE) # get the chosen install prefix
and because of this bug, they need additionally this line:
+ get_filename_component(rootDir ${rootDir} REALPATH)
This will not make it easier to convince people that the Config.cmake files
are a good thing, if each of them needs a workaround.
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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
Re: [CMake] subject changed: question about which bugs you're talking about
Am 11.01.2012 21:25, schrieb David Cole: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf > wrote: >> On Wednesday 11 January 2012, Patrick Spendrin wrote: >>> Am 02.01.2012 18:11, schrieb David Cole: Hi all, Replies requested. Short replies only. Read on. Just a short reply with bug numbers or links to the bugs is all we need here. Please move specific discussions into the bugs themselves or start a new thread to talk about it... Replies on this thread should just be a collector for bug numbers. Example one-line reply: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=12647 We are aiming for quarterly releases from now on, scheduling them every 3 months. That would make the next release of CMake version 2.8.8, scheduled to have an "rc1" release candidate on Wed. March 7, 2012 -- just 9 weeks from this Wednesday. If you have a particular issue that you think should be fixed for inclusion in 2.8.8, please bring it up within the next two weeks. Ideally, each issue will be discussed as needed on the mailing list to come to any consensus about what should be done to fix it, and then an entry in the bug tracker may be used to keep it on the radar screen, and to track activity related to it. You can see what's on the roadmap for this release here: http://public.kitware.com/Bug/roadmap_page.php?version_id=90 Patches are always welcome. Patches that include testing of any new features, or tests that prove a bug is really fixed on the dashboards, basically any patch with testing is preferred over a patch with no testing. Also, if you are *adding* code, then you also probably need to add *tests* of that code, so that the coverage percentage stays as is or rises. Please discuss issues here as needed, and add notes to existing issues in the bug tracker that you are interested in seeing fixed -- we will be looking at the mailing list and activity in the bug tracker to help prioritize the bug fixes that will occur in the near future. >>> >>> My personal issues are: >>> http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=10994 >>> and connected to it: http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=11153 >>> The handling of the windows drive root is not consistent/wrong, which >>> leads to both errors. I checked yesterday but the patches I added in >>> 10994 do lead to an endless loop in 11153. I will try to come up with a >>> better patch in the coming days. >> >> IMO these are quite important issue, since they issue causes every >> FooConfig.cmake file installed by any of the KDE libraries to contain extra >> code to work around this issue, which makes them less readable and harder to >> write (and easier to get wrong). >> >> 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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake > > > Are you talking about http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=10994 and > http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=11153 ?? > > How do these require extra code in your config files? > > I would think putting the CMakeLists file at the root of a drive would > be quite uncommon. Why is the workaround mentioned in the bug > insufficient? See the explanation Alex gave - the issue is not only that files are at the root of the drive, but also that if you have the root of the drive in your variable, get_filename_component behaves differently (see bug 10994 which is exactly about that). The point why subst is used is rather easy: building with mingw+mingw32-make will lead to the restriction of ~6000 chars in commandline (a restriction of the windows cmd.exe). Some packages we build (kdelibs, digikam) currently are able to hit this number of characters which makes *every* character our paths are shorter really valuable. regards, Patrick -- 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://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
