On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Andrea Crotti <andrea.crott...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 01:32 PM, David Cole wrote: > >> You should just get used to using shorter paths on the embarrassing OS. >> >> This is an early warning sign for you that your end users will also >> encounter these problems as they install your program on their systems in >> "non-short" root paths... >> >> You can ignore it if you wish, but the fact remains that Windows STILL >> has many components in it that rely on full path names of ALL files being >> less than 260 characters. >> >> They do support longer file names, but there are still many legacy tools >> where the limit exists. >> >> >> HTH, >> David >> >> > I agree with you, unfortunately I'm not the person that has to use smaller > paths, just writing the build system.. > And good point about the installed application, I think I can assume > however that if the CPack works also > the installed application should work, because it doesn't have the ~20 > chars needed for CPacking (but of course > depends on where it will be installed). > > So well the only way is to make really sure there are no long paths around > then :( > If Windows is your target system, then yes: you must make sure all your paths are short enough. Cheers, David
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
