[cmake-developers] [CMake 0014943]: Add an option to cpack to select which component package(s) to generate

2014-05-29 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=14943 == Reported By:Thierry Valentin Assigned To:

[cmake-developers] [CMake 0014944]: Add more control over individual components in a component-based configuration

2014-05-29 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=14944 == Reported By:Thierry Valentin Assigned To:

[cmake-developers] [CMake 0014945]: Q_WS_* obsolete in QT5 - now it is Q_OS_*

2014-05-29 Thread Mantis Bug Tracker
The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=14945 == Reported By:Richard Patek Assigned To:

Re: [cmake-developers] Using reflinks during install phase

2014-05-29 Thread Alessandro Di Federico
On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:17:39 -0400 Brad King brad.k...@kitware.com wrote: On 05/28/2014 01:20 PM, Alessandro Di Federico wrote: Hi, I'm working on a quite big project, namely LLVM. As you can imagine, launching a `make install` it's quite time consuming, in particular in Debug builds.

Re: [cmake-developers] Using reflinks during install phase

2014-05-29 Thread Brad King
On 05/29/2014 08:06 AM, Alessandro Di Federico wrote: OK, I'll come up with a patch. The only thing is that --reflink has been introduced around 2009, in coreutils 7.6 (we are currently at 8.22). Is it OK to assume we have such coreutils or some kind of (build-time?) detection is needed?

Re: [cmake-developers] FindFreetype Patches

2014-05-29 Thread Brad King
On 05/28/2014 10:24 PM, Greg Jung wrote: I found on Linux, FindFreetype is not found because it is invoked the lower-case f'. Propose to change the name to Findfreetype. Call find_package(Freetype) in your project to get the case right. -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Please keep

Re: [cmake-developers] OpenBSD without SONAME

2014-05-29 Thread Brad King
On 05/28/2014 05:19 PM, J Decker wrote: CMake would much rather use full paths rather than -L/-l because of ambiguity problems. I can get around abguity by ordering the order of -L entries.. CMake versions prior to 2.6 always did that. We had no end of trouble with the wrong library files

Re: [cmake-developers] Weird dependency on object files generated elsewhere

2014-05-29 Thread Brad King
On 05/08/2014 02:34 PM, James Bigler wrote: CUDA_FILES = /Users/jbigler/code/FindCUDA/build-cmake-git/src/CMakeFiles/cuda_compile.dir//./cuda_compile_generated_test_bin.cu.o When I try to compile cuda_compile_example I get this, though: make[2]: *** No rule to make target

Re: [cmake-developers] New no-soname-option topic for e.g. Android

2014-05-29 Thread Vadim Zhukov
28.05.2014 20:17 пользователь Nils Gladitz nilsglad...@gmail.com написал: On 28.05.2014 18:01, Vadim Zhukov wrote: I assumed that because people kept removing the soname options for their Android toolchains that SONAMEs aren't supported at all. It however looks like they just can't

[cmake-developers] Compiler feature extensions by default

2014-05-29 Thread Stephen Kelly
Hello, Part of the design of the compile features concept is that it may be used to require compiler extensions. The extensions are enabled by default for GNU and Clang - that is, the option -std=gnu++98 is implied. Passing -std=c++98 disables the extensions, as do other language standard

Re: [cmake-developers] OpenBSD without SONAME (was: New no-soname-option topic for e.g. Android)

2014-05-29 Thread Brad King
On 05/29/2014 12:32 PM, Vadim Zhukov wrote: I was not aware of such issue before that question. :) Yes, paths are written in NEEDED entries if requested, that's what CMake does for external libraries (outside project). Internal libraries are linked by name, though, allowing to relocate the

Re: [cmake-developers] Compiler feature extensions by default

2014-05-29 Thread Brad King
On 05/29/2014 12:50 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: I recommend we change C{,XX}_EXTENSIONS to 'on-by-default'. The user may still set it to FALSE explicitly in order to use a possible non-extended compile option where available. Fine with me. It matches the compiler behavior of having extensions