Whatever happened to this?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Philip Lowman phi...@yhbt.com wrote:
Hi,
Luigi suggested a kind of CMake ports system in a recent thread here on the
CMake mailing list. This would presumably be a system whereby popular 3rd
party dependencies which have not yet
On Saturday 07 March 2009 11:08:43 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
Whatever happened to this?
It's here:
http://code.google.com/p/cmakeports/
People are talking on the group list here and some stuff has been committed.
Unfortunately I personally have the feeling that it's starting as a bit
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Peter Drahos drah...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm one of the developers of LuaDist (Lua module distribution and build
system) that uses CMake for building. Its rather simple ports-like tool
that can install Lua modules and few libraries that we CM'd, including
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Mike Arthur m...@mikearthur.co.uk wrote:
On Saturday 07 March 2009 11:08:43 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
Whatever happened to this?
It's here:
http://code.google.com/p/cmakeports/
People are talking on the group list here and some stuff has been
committed.
On Saturday 07 March 2009 20:45:55 Philip Lowman wrote:
I have no plans to develop a package manager from the work done in
CMakePorts. As I've stated in other mailing lists like sldev, I think that
would be a waste of time.
My apologies, rereading the messages that led me to draw that
On Friday 20 February 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Alexander Neundorf
a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
This is an interesting idea.
One thought I had was the potential of new features creeping into
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Eric Noulard eric.noul...@gmail.comwrote:
...
if FORCE_UPDATE is YES/TRUE then the module would be updated everytime
cmake is run.
The default would be not to update if the file is already there locally.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
This is an interesting idea.
One thought I had was the potential of new features creeping into the
CMake
module you're downloading that aren't yet
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
wrote:
Since many of the dependencies overlap, is there general interest in
this
kind of a thing from the VTK perspective or from others?
The goal would be to create an open-source project (hosted probably at a
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Luigi Calori l.cal...@cineca.it wrote:
Alexander Neundorf ha scritto:
I do not see value in keeping sources (as VTK does) apart from avoid the
download-expand step.
If the cmake scripts use glob rex expr to get source files, it should be
quite resilient to
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Mike Arthur m...@mikearthur.co.uk wrote:
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 02:24:17 Alan W. Irwin wrote:
Of course, you can debate forever whether such a SF project would be
successful or not, but the only way to really know is to try it and see.
That is, start
Philip Lowman wrote:
For the first cut I think starting out with keeping the CMakified
sources in the project would be fine. Many people are never going to
want anything more complicated than this and we know that this will at
least work for now.
CMake can already untar with -E mode.
Patrick Spendrin wrote:
Does this sound interesting?
Yes.
As I am maintaining patches for some libraries and working for some
others, it would be nice to have such a unified system to keep doubled
work amount low.
This has some more points:
We would not have to maintain our patches in our
On Tuesday 17 February 2009, you wrote:
...
Of course, you can debate forever whether such a SF project would be
successful or not, but the only way to really know is to try it and see.
That is, start with something small and expand from there. I don't have
time to help with such a SF project
Bill Hoffman ha scritto:
Philip Lowman wrote:
For the first cut I think starting out with keeping the CMakified
sources in the project would be fine. Many people are never going to
want anything more complicated than this and we know that this will
at least work for now.
CMake can
AddExternalProject is related. It can be used to download files as custom
build steps. (And then configure, build, install... other projects.)
It is only in CVS CMake right now, but it is on its way to maturing to the
point where it could be used for a project like this fairly quickly.
On Tue,
Trying to get up to speed on this thread- apologies if I missed this.
Long story short, as an OSS developer and new Cmake user, I'm less
interested in getting libfoo building with Cmake and a lot more
interested in CMake modules for detecting and using libfoo in my own
project. In reality, these
From: Philip Lowman phi...@yhbt.com
To: Luigi Calori l.cal...@cineca.it
Cc: CMake Mailing List cmake@cmake.org; a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:29:07 AM
Subject: Re: [CMake] open source project for CMake ports?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Luigi
Aaron Turner wrote:
Trying to get up to speed on this thread- apologies if I missed this.
Long story short, as an OSS developer and new Cmake user, I'm less
interested in getting libfoo building with Cmake and a lot more
interested in CMake modules for detecting and using libfoo in my own
BRM wrote:
I read through this thread, and I think there may be a better route -
Instead of trying to create all kinds of patches, etc; why not make a
simple tool to convert an autotool project to CMake and vice-versa?
Perhaps call it 'autotool2cmake'?
This way, the process becomes simpler:
On Tuesday 17 February 2009, Bill Hoffman wrote:
Aaron Turner wrote:
...
Honestly, I think in the long run, improving the existing standard
library of Cmake modules to allow developers to concentrate on how to
build their own code rather then figure out how to link to various
libraries
2009/2/17 Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net:
But a http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/ type archive for CMake modules
would also be a good idea.
At FOSDEM we also discussed about something like this, some kind of
semi-official place where to get additional cmake files.
Right now you
2009/2/17 Eric Noulard eric.noul...@gmail.com:
2009/2/17 Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net:
But a http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/ type archive for CMake modules
would also be a good idea.
At FOSDEM we also discussed about something like this, some kind of
semi-official place where
2009/2/16 Bill Hoffman bill.hoff...@kitware.com:
Philip Lowman wrote:
A tertiary goal would be convincing the 3rd party dependencies to switch
to CMake for their native build systems.
I don't really like the propaganda idea :-)
Particularly for Open Source projects.
Open Source is about
Eric Noulard wrote:
2009/2/16 Bill Hoffman bill.hoff...@kitware.com:
Philip Lowman wrote:
A tertiary goal would be convincing the 3rd party dependencies to switch
to CMake for their native build systems.
I don't really like the propaganda idea :-)
Particularly for Open Source projects.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Bill Hoffman bill.hoff...@kitware.comwrote:
Also, it would be really great if we setup a dashboard for this project. I
am thinking it could all be checked out and built on a variety of
compilers/OS's nightly.
Wouldn't have it any other way. :)
--
Philip
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Eric Noulard eric.noul...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/17 Eric Noulard eric.noul...@gmail.com:
2009/2/17 Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net:
But a http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/ type archive for CMake modules
would also be a good idea.
At FOSDEM
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Eric Noulard eric.noul...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/16 Bill Hoffman bill.hoff...@kitware.com:
Philip Lowman wrote:
A tertiary goal would be convincing the 3rd party dependencies to switch
to CMake for their native build systems.
I don't really like the
Alexander Neundorf ha scritto:
On Monday 16 February 2009, Philip Lowman wrote:
Hi,
Luigi suggested a kind of CMake ports system in a recent thread here on the
CMake mailing list. This would presumably be a system whereby popular 3rd
party dependencies which have not yet CMakeified their
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Bill Hoffman bill.hoff...@kitware.comwrote:
Philip Lowman wrote:
Hi,
Luigi suggested a kind of CMake ports system in a recent thread here on
the CMake mailing list. This would presumably be a system whereby popular
3rd party dependencies which have not
On 2009-02-17 00:41+0100 Luigi Calori wrote:
I think also the KDE-on-Windows developer cmakeified a few projects.
I' ve checked out the [KDE-on-Windows] project, it is really inetresting, I' ve tried their
emerge utility (a kind of a port of the Gentoo portage tools on windows)
It seems it is
Philip Lowman schrieb:
Hi,
Luigi suggested a kind of CMake ports system in a recent thread here on
the CMake mailing list. This would presumably be a system whereby
popular 3rd party dependencies which have not yet CMakeified their
source trees could be CM'd and baselined in one place and
Hi,
Luigi suggested a kind of CMake ports system in a recent thread here on the
CMake mailing list. This would presumably be a system whereby popular 3rd
party dependencies which have not yet CMakeified their source trees could be
CM'd and baselined in one place and ultimately downloaded for
Philip Lowman wrote:
Hi,
Luigi suggested a kind of CMake ports system in a recent thread here on
the CMake mailing list. This would presumably be a system whereby
popular 3rd party dependencies which have not yet CMakeified their
source trees could be CM'd and baselined in one place and
34 matches
Mail list logo
