On Tuesday 06 December 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Monday 07 November 2011, Brad King wrote:
> > On 11/6/2011 6:12 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > ecm_copy_modules(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/modules FindFoo.cmake
> > >
> > > FindBlub.cmake
>
On 12/6/2011 1:37 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Tuesday 06 December 2011, Brad King wrote:
That proposal looks good to me. As an additional suggestion, I think
you should always use an ECM version number so people get used to writing
it. That way projects can ensure they get a compatible ve
On Tuesday 06 December 2011, Brad King wrote:
> On 12/6/2011 1:13 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Does that look like it should cover all use cases, for peopling wanting
> > to selectively use some things from e-c-m, and fearing that something
> > would break if they simply would make everything
On 12/6/2011 1:13 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Does that look like it should cover all use cases, for peopling wanting to
selectively use some things from e-c-m, and fearing that something would break
if they simply would make everything available ?
That proposal looks good to me. As an addit
Hi,
On Monday 07 November 2011, Brad King wrote:
> On 11/6/2011 6:12 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > ecm_copy_modules(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/modules FindFoo.cmake
> >
> > FindBlub.cmake
> > ECMDoSomething.cmake)
On 11/6/2011 6:12 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
ecm_copy_modules(${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/modules FindFoo.cmake
FindBlub.cmake
ECMDoSomething.cmake)
set(CMAKE_MODULE_PATH ${CMAKE_MODULE_PATH} ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/m
Re-sending.
Original Message
Subject:How to handle different cmake versions in extra-cmake-modules ?
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:45:44 +0100
From: Alexander Neundorf
Reply-To: neund...@kde.org
To: cmake-developers@cmake.org
CC: Stephen Kelly
Hi,
we (
