Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

2012/2/16 Brad King : > On 2/16/2012 4:13 PM, David Cole wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Eric Noulard > > wrote: >>    I'm not convinced, yet I'll have to try with the example provided by >> Alex >>    by adding proper CPack usage in it. >> >>    Currentl

Re: [cmake-developers] Modifying RPATH feature to run tests uninstalled

On Friday 17 February 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Hi there, > > One of the macros we have in KDE creates shell scripts to initialize > environment variables needed on various platforms so that tests can be run > before installation. If RPATH is enabled, the scripts are not needed, but > RPATH is

[cmake-developers] Making GUI applications by default

Hi there, Also in this thread one of the discussion topics was making CMake default to creating Gui-ready executables. That is, setting the WIN32_EXECUTABLE or MACOSX_BUNDLE property on the executable target. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.buildsystem/6961/focus=7005 By default

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 1:24 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > Actually I expected I would prefer this over the fixed names, but now > > that I've done it and look at what Config.cmake.in file I have to write, > > I think I liked the previous version with the f

[cmake-developers] Modifying RPATH feature to run tests uninstalled

Hi there, One of the macros we have in KDE creates shell scripts to initialize environment variables needed on various platforms so that tests can be run before installation. If RPATH is enabled, the scripts are not needed, but RPATH is sometimes disabled, so the scripts are the solution to th

Re: [cmake-developers] ninja broken on windows?

On 2/16/2012 5:19 PM, David Cole wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Richard Wackerbarth mailto:rich...@nfsnet.org>> wrote: What are we trying to accomplish here? 2 things: (1) Keep the CMake ninja generator working with the changing state of the CMake code base (primary) (2) Understa

Re: [cmake-developers] ninja broken on windows?

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > What are we trying to accomplish here? > 2 things: (1) Keep the CMake ninja generator working with the changing state of the CMake code base (primary) (2) Understanding what version of ninja works good on all the platforms on which it

Re: [cmake-developers] ninja broken on windows?

What are we trying to accomplish here? I have set up 3 of my machines (1 each MacOSX, FreeBSD, and Linux --- like my housekeeper, I don't do Windows) to submit nightly builds using the Ninja generator. That will test the impact of changes in the generator. But it appears that we may also need t

Re: [cmake-developers] ninja broken on windows?

On 16.02.2012 21:38, Bill Hoffman wrote: On 2/16/2012 2:57 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: They are not interested. There is another patch in the pipeline but with this the current generator doesn't work. Use the official ninja and drop Win atm. Bummer. I am most interested in windows. Would love

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On 2/16/2012 4:13 PM, David Cole wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Eric Noulard mailto:eric.noul...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm not convinced, yet I'll have to try with the example provided by Alex by adding proper CPack usage in it. Currently I see in BarConfig.cmake get_filena

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Eric Noulard wrote: > 2012/2/16 Brad King : > > On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Eric Noulard wrote: > >> > >> What are you targeting? > >> > >> install-time i.e. "make install" usage? > >> package install time prodduced with cpack usage? > >> package install time NOT produce

Re: [cmake-developers] target_include_directories branch in stage

David Cole wrote: > Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it soon. There are a handful of > minor changes that I still need to make first. Ok. Let me know if it's anything I can do. Thanks, Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.ki

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

2012/2/16 Brad King : > On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Eric Noulard wrote: >> >> What are you targeting? >> >> install-time i.e. "make install" usage? >> package install time prodduced with cpack usage? >> package install time NOT produced with cpack usage? >> a subset of this? > > > The goal is a FooConfig

Re: [cmake-developers] ninja broken on windows?

On 2/16/2012 2:57 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: They are not interested. There is another patch in the pipeline but with this the current generator doesn't work. Use the official ninja and drop Win atm. Bummer. I am most interested in windows. Would love to stop using gmake... Seems like they ar

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Eric Noulard wrote: What are you targeting? install-time i.e. "make install" usage? package install time prodduced with cpack usage? package install time NOT produced with cpack usage? a subset of this? The goal is a FooConfig.cmake file for "make install" time but that c

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

2012/2/14 Alexander Neundorf : > On Tuesday 14 February 2012, Brad King wrote: >> On 2/14/2012 1:26 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> > Well, CMakeConfigHelpers.cmake would be shipped with cmake, so as long as >> > the Config.cmake file says >> > cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.8) >> > it would b

Re: [cmake-developers] ninja broken on windows?

On 16.02.2012 04:51, Bill Hoffman wrote: On 2/15/2012 5:52 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: In summary: - use the CMakeLists.txt from https://github.com/syntheticpp/ninja/tree/cmake - on Windows use ninja from https://github.com/syntheticpp/ninja/tree/token-splitter and wait and see

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On 2/16/2012 1:24 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Actually I expected I would prefer this over the fixed names, but now that I've done it and look at what Config.cmake.in file I have to write, I think I liked the previous version with the fixed names (CONFIG_HELPER) better. I think it was easier to

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: ... > > >> Good. Did you consider other prefixes? > > > > > > It should match with the other variable names which are generated, and > > > they use the CONFIG_HELPER_ prefix. > > > > I was as

Re: [cmake-developers] target_include_directories branch in stage

Pushed down the queue again... I'll get to it soon. There are a handful of minor changes that I still need to make first. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > David Cole wrote: > > > Excellent : thanks very much for trying it out. I'll try to get this > first > > draft merged

[cmake-developers] FYI: Cross compiling ideas...

Hi, just FYI some input on what people would like to have when cross compiling. Like uploading executables to the target in try_run(), installing to a target using something like scp, etc. Alex -- Forwarded Message -- Date: Thursday 16 February 2012, 14:32:21 From: Thomas Za

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On Thursday 16 February 2012, David Cole wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Brad King wrote: > > On 2/16/2012 10:48 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> 5) configure_package_config_file(**) + write_basic_package_version_** > >> file() > >> > >> So, 5) ? > > > > Looks good. Thanks. > > >

Re: [cmake-developers] Support for imported targets in CMAKE_REQUIRED_LIBRARIES

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > > On 2/16/2012 6:32 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > Done, and pushed to stage. > > > I added the prefix "cmake_" to the function, and added a test for it. > > > > Looks good, thanks. > >

Re: [cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Brad King wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Alexander Neundorf > wrote: > > On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > >> but I do not want to require every project to change almost every > >> find_package call and generate a policy warning about

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On 2/16/2012 11:58 AM, David Cole wrote: potential confusion between PackageConfig and PkgConfig? That's why I want to call the module "CMakePackageConfigHelper". It's for "cmake package configuration" files. Back when I chose the name I'd never heard of pkgconfig so it was an accident and now

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 10:48 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> 5) configure_package_config_file(**) + write_basic_package_version_** >> file() >> >> So, 5) ? >> > > Looks good. Thanks. > > -Brad > > -- > > Powered by www.kitware.com > > Visit other Kit

Re: [cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: >> but I do not want to require every project to change almost every >> find_package call and generate a policy warning about every call in >> every old project release. > > My impression i

Re: [cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 10:30 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> In any of the above modes the error message can be more explicit. > >> It is up to the author of the project to choose to do this. I do > >> not want it to be required. > > > > Here we disagree.

Re: [cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

On 2/16/2012 10:59 AM, Brad King wrote: On 2/16/2012 10:30 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: In any of the above modes the error message can be more explicit. It is up to the author of the project to choose to do this. I do not want it to be required. Here we disagree. I think it should be require

Re: [cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

On 2/16/2012 10:30 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: In any of the above modes the error message can be more explicit. It is up to the author of the project to choose to do this. I do not want it to be required. Here we disagree. I think it should be required, to avoid the impression "finding pack

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On 2/16/2012 10:48 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: 5) configure_package_config_file() + write_basic_package_version_file() So, 5) ? Looks good. Thanks. -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please k

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 10:15 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > >> In hindsight that name was poorly chosen. I'd really like to see > >> "package" in the name because they are "package configuration files". > >

Re: [cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 8:19 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > Comments, objections ? > > The entire point of find_package's interface is that the caller > does not need to care how the package is found, and the actual > method used for the find can change und

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On 2/16/2012 10:15 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: In hindsight that name was poorly chosen. I'd really like to see "package" in the name because they are "package configuration files". Otherwise there is no indication it has anything to do with fin

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 2:24 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> cmake_package_config > > > > We have already write_basic_config_version_file(), and I wanted to have > > the > > In hindsight that name was poorly chosen. I'd really like to see "package" >

Re: [cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

On 2/16/2012 2:24 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: cmake_package_config We have already write_basic_config_version_file(), and I wanted to have the In hindsight that name was poorly chosen. I'd really like to see "package" in the name because they are "package configuration files". Otherwi

Re: [cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

On 2/16/2012 8:19 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Comments, objections ? The entire point of find_package's interface is that the caller does not need to care how the package is found, and the actual method used for the find can change under the hood. Ideally every package would provide a packag

Re: [cmake-developers] Support for imported targets in CMAKE_REQUIRED_LIBRARIES

On Thursday 16 February 2012, Brad King wrote: > On 2/16/2012 6:32 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > Done, and pushed to stage. > > I added the prefix "cmake_" to the function, and added a test for it. > > Looks good, thanks. > > However now that I look at the end result I realize that the functi

Re: [cmake-developers] Support for imported targets in CMAKE_REQUIRED_LIBRARIES

On 2/16/2012 6:32 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Done, and pushed to stage. I added the prefix "cmake_" to the function, and added a test for it. Looks good, thanks. However now that I look at the end result I realize that the functionality is not specific to CMAKE_REQUIRED_LIBRARIES at all. I

[cmake-developers] Bad error message when a package could not be found - make find_package() not search config files by default

Hi, when I use a Find-module to search for a package, I get a nice error message if the package could not be found. If I use find_package(Foo) and rely on Config-mode, cmake produces an error message which doesn't help the user: ~/src/extra-cmake-modules/example/b$ make rebuild_cache Running

Re: [cmake-developers] target_include_directories branch in stage

David Cole wrote: > Excellent : thanks very much for trying it out. I'll try to get this first > draft merged to 'next' tonight or tomorrow. Any update on this? -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please

Re: [cmake-developers] Support for imported targets in CMAKE_REQUIRED_LIBRARIES

On Monday 30 January 2012, Brad King wrote: ... > You're running into the same can of worms I (now) remember running into > a few years ago when you first proposed handling imported targets with > try_compile. That's one reason it never got done. Let's just drop the > C++ side of this again. You