Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 24/02/2016 22:49, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> I've attached a patch for a very simple modification to find_dependency.
>> I'm not proposing that it be merged, it's just a suggestion for
>> further discussion. I've tested it with my own packages with multiple
>>
On 24/02/2016 22:49, Roger Leigh wrote:
I've attached a patch for a very simple modification to find_dependency.
I'm not proposing that it be merged, it's just a suggestion for
further discussion. I've tested it with my own packages with multiple
find_dependency(Boost COMPONENTS ...) calls.
On 24/12/2015 12:07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
On 21/12/2015 15:07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
I can understand why REQUIRED and related
arguments are omitted--that is why find_dependency exists--but I'd quite
like to be able to specify COMPONENTS where needed e.g.
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On 21/12/2015 15:07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> I can understand why REQUIRED and related
>>> arguments are omitted--that is why find_dependency exists--but I'd quite
>>> like to be able to specify COMPONENTS where needed e.g. with FindBoost,
>>> and this
On 21/12/2015 15:07, Stephen Kelly wrote:
Roger Leigh wrote:
I've run into a few limitations in find_dependency. I'm not sure if
these are by design or could be fixed, so this is really a request for
further explanation or design rationale.
The first issue is this:
if (NOT ${dep}_FOUND)
Roger Leigh wrote:
> I've run into a few limitations in find_dependency. I'm not sure if
> these are by design or could be fixed, so this is really a request for
> further explanation or design rationale.
>
> The first issue is this:
>
>if (NOT ${dep}_FOUND)
>
> This seems to be making
I've run into a few limitations in find_dependency. I'm not sure if
these are by design or could be fixed, so this is really a request for
further explanation or design rationale.
The first issue is this:
if (NOT ${dep}_FOUND)
This seems to be making the assumption that the found variable
