Hi Bill,
Eric NOULARD wrote:
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:47:20 -0200,
Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
Hi,
Since my last post about this got unnoticed I'm reposting it, this
time with additional information.
Sorry, I did see your post, and I am busy...
Understandable.
So, you
Eric NOULARD wrote:
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:47:20 -0200,
Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
Hi,
Since my last post about this got unnoticed I'm reposting it, this
time with additional information.
[...]
May be CMake devel are busy :-)
Fair enough.
The culprint is in the follo
Eric NOULARD wrote:
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:47:20 -0200,
Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
Hi,
Since my last post about this got unnoticed I'm reposting it, this
time with additional information.
Sorry, I did see your post, and I am busy...
So, you also mentioned this case:
SE
Le Tue, 11 Nov 2008 11:47:20 -0200,
Fernando Cacciola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Since my last post about this got unnoticed I'm reposting it, this
> time with additional information.
>
[...]
May be CMake devel are busy :-)
> The culprint is in the following section of the cmake so
Hi,
Since my last post about this got unnoticed I'm reposting it, this time
with additional information.
If you run cmake with a definition in the command-line, like so:
cmake -DVAR=123 .
in 2.6.2 that goes into the cache as an UNINITIALIZED variable:
VAR:UNINITIALIZED=123
And, since it i
