On Jan 15, 2008 7:39 PM, Alexander Neundorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Adding a layer written in cmake on top of cmake doesn't sound good IMO. I
> think my main problem with autotools was that they were a set of tools, you
> had to learn and know each of them, and if one of them failed I was
>
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Martin Lutken wrote:
...
> Well hope that gave you an impression of what it is. So the reason I need
> an anternative name for the CMakeLists.txt file is that I wan't CBS
> makefiles to be able to live side by side with a projects own CMake files.
I'm not sure this is a
On Jan 15, 2008 2:54 PM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I meant is, it looks like cbs wants to use CMake to replace the
> "normal" package manager in a source-based distro.
I still don't quite get it, perhaps because I have no practical
experience preparing packages for distri
On 15.01.08 12:05:36, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 11:46 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 15.01.08 11:37:12, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > > I'm unclear. What is the strategic purpose of CBS?
> >
> > If I understood correctly, the purpose is to (at some point) bui
On Jan 15, 2008 5:15 AM, Martin Lutken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And can't see why you could nor set that option from the GUI also
> Before generating the makefiles.
One could, but as I posted previously, it would be a substantial
amount of additional implementation work to do slickly, and it
On Jan 15, 2008 11:46 AM, Andreas Pakulat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15.01.08 11:37:12, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > I'm unclear. What is the strategic purpose of CBS?
>
> If I understood correctly, the purpose is to (at some point) build
> foobar, including all deps completely with cbs.
But
On 15.01.08 11:37:12, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> I'm unclear. What is the strategic purpose of CBS?
If I understood correctly, the purpose is to (at some point) build
foobar, including all deps completely with cbs. To me this totally
sounds like Gentoo with cmake files as "emerge" replacement.
A
On Jan 15, 2008 7:03 AM, Martin Lutken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Simple example from my actual codebase. CBS (Common Build System) makefiles
> for zlib and libpng, which depends on zlib (install stuff not included):
>
> --- z.cbs ---
> TARGET_DEFAULT_VERSION ( 1 2 3 )
> ADD_SOURCE_FILE ( adle
Martin Lutken wrote:
Hmm well I see It can wait anyway.
I allready do the include-trick from the general Makefile, but in the
transitional phase for a large project it would be much easier to be able do
it that way.
Maybe it's because I never really used CMake GUI frontends Only trie
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 16:40, you wrote:
> Martin Lutken wrote:
> > That might work too.
> > I also does not understand why You are soo resistant to a minor feature
> > which couldn't really hurt anyone?
>
> I just want to make sure it is a feature that we want. I will be one of
> the ones sup
Martin Lutken wrote:
That might work too.
I also does not understand why You are soo resistant to a minor feature which
couldn't really hurt anyone?
I just want to make sure it is a feature that we want. I will be one of
the ones supporting it for as long as CMake is around. As it is your
> If you do cmake -f client.txt, then every add_subdirectory and subdirs
> will now look for client.txt. That is not the way make -f works. If
> you do make -f it just changes the initial makefile that is read into
> make, after that it is up to the makefile writer to use include, or
> recursive
On Monday 14 January 2008 18:42, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 12:16 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > > Example: I have a legacy handwritten GMake client.mk that acquires the
> > > build tree from CVS before the main Autoconf generated Makefi
On Monday 14 January 2008 04:04, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 2008 4:23 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Martin Lütken wrote:
> >>> That's great then. Do you know who to address in order to get the patch
> >>> into the CVS code ?
> >>
> >> Actually,
On Jan 14, 2008 12:16 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
>
> >
> > Example: I have a legacy handwritten GMake client.mk that acquires the
> > build tree from CVS before the main Autoconf generated Makefile is
> > run. The tree is grabbed from CVS and built by ty
Brandon Van Every wrote:
Example: I have a legacy handwritten GMake client.mk that acquires the
build tree from CVS before the main Autoconf generated Makefile is
run. The tree is grabbed from CVS and built by typing "make -f
client.mk". The simplest translation to a CMake system would be
"cm
On Jan 14, 2008 11:44 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't specially like the idea of different names for CMakeLists.txt
> and I don't see the use case, either. It makes sense for 'make' to
> have a '-f' parameter because you have make, gmake, nmake, with
> slightly or tot
On Jan 14, 2008 9:01 AM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 2008 10:04 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Many people will run CMake from a GUI and will not be giving a
> >> -f flag. With the patch there would be no way to build a proj
Quoting Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008 10:04 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many people will run CMake from a GUI and will not be giving a
-f flag. With the patch there would be no way to build a project via
one of the GUI's if it requi
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008 10:04 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many people will run CMake from a GUI and will not be giving a
-f flag. With the patch there would be no way to build a project via
one of the GUI's if it required changing the name of the file.
cmakese
On Jan 13, 2008 10:04 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Many people will run CMake from a GUI and will not be giving a
> -f flag. With the patch there would be no way to build a project via
> one of the GUI's if it required changing the name of the file.
cmakesetup and ccmake would
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008 4:23 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Lütken wrote:
That's great then. Do you know who to address in order to get the patch
into the CVS code ?
Actually, what about something like this:
# CMakeLists.txt
INCLUDE(${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE
On Jan 13, 2008 4:23 PM, Bill Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Lütken wrote:
> > That's great then. Do you know who to address in order to get the patch
> > into the CVS code ?
> >
>
> Actually, what about something like this:
>
> # CMakeLists.txt
> INCLUDE(${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/${
Martin Lütken wrote:
That's great then. Do you know who to address in order to get the patch
into the CVS code ?
Actually, what about something like this:
# CMakeLists.txt
INCLUDE(${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/${CML_NAME}")
cmake /path/to/proj -DCML_NAME:STRING="mycmake1.txt"
cmake /path/to/p
That's great then. Do you know who to address in order to get the patch into
the CVS code ?
-Martin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brandon Van Every
Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 8:38 PM
To: cmake@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [CMake] Patch to apply! Changing the default
On Jan 13, 2008 1:58 PM, Martin Lütken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok heres a new patch using '-f' as the option!
Excellent, thanks! I could actually see a use for this, if it were
available in a production version of CMake. The source tree I'm
working on has multiple layers of Makefiles
Ok heres a new patch using '-f' as the option!
-Martin Lütken
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brandon Van Every
Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 6:57 PM
To: cmake@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [CMake] Patch to apply! Changing the default name"CMakeLists.txt"!
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brandon Van Every
Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 6:57 PM
To: cmake@cmake.org
Subject: Re: [CMake] Patch to apply! Changing the default name"CMakeLists.txt"!
On Jan 13, 2008 12:13 PM, Martin Lütken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's a long
On Jan 13, 2008 12:13 PM, Martin Lütken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's a long time since I said I might do this feature. But with the
> supplied
> patch it's now possible to use the option '--cmakelists-file-name' to
> specify
> another filename to look for instead of 'CMakeLists.txt'.
Is
Hi
It's a long time since I said I might do this feature. But with the supplied
patch it's now possible to use the option '--cmakelists-file-name' to specify
another filename to look for instead of 'CMakeLists.txt'. I have a very good
reason for needing this for a ambitios project, which however
30 matches
Mail list logo
