On Monday 07 February 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Sunday 06 February 2011, Eric Noulard wrote: > > 2011/2/5 Alexander Neundorf <neund...@kde.org>: > > > Hi, > > > > > > in general we keep cmake as backward compatible as possible, so no > > > builds are broken. > > > > > > In a local branch I have a version of cmake with a small improvement to > > > the graphviz support in cmake. > > > It turns the variable GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS from a list of strings > > > into a list of regular expressions. I.e. everything which was before in > > > GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS and excluded from the dot-files, is now still > > > excluded, but now there may be more targets excluded (e.g. for "kio" > > > now not only "kio" is excluded, but also "kio_ftp" etc.) > > > Also, with this change, the variable GRAPHVIZ_TARGET_IGNORE_REGEX is > > > not supported anymore, so targets previously excluded from the > > > dot-files via this (one) regex are now included. > > > > > > Both issues can be fixed by, for the first, putting "^...$" around the > > > string, and for the second by just putting the regex now into > > > GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS . > > > > > > Strictly speaking, this breaks compatibility regarding the graphviz > > > support. But, do we care about this ? > > > * it is and was completely undocumented (will write a wiki page soon) > > > * the changes don't influence the build itself, so no build can be > > > broken by this change > > > > > > What do you think ? > > > > I think that, I didn't even know the existence of this, so I wouldn't > > care about breaking it :-] > > Moreover I am basically ok that the breakage of an undocumented feature > > is not a real breakage. > > > > Now may be you can: > > 1) rename GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS to "CMAKE_GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS" > > which is more consistent with other var names. > > > > 2) check GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS and GRAPHVIZ_TARGET_IGNORE_REGEX > > and issue a WARNING if they are used. > > > > 2) may even be unecessary with the new "--warn-unused-vars" option. > > > > the baseline is if you break it, then break it ALL there won't be any > > confusion. > > I could also make these variables cache variables. > That's IMO easier to use and also better discoverable. > With "GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS" they would be all in the "GRAPHVIZ" subtree, > with "CMAKE_GRAPHVIZ_IGNORE_TARGETS" they would be all together with the > other cmake variables in the "CMAKE" subtree. > > Being in a "GRAPHVIZ" subtree would make them easier to spot, so maybe I'd > prefer this. But I don't have a strong opinion. > > Other comments ?
I guess this means that backward compatibility is no issue here. Eric, what do you think about the naming and whether make them cache variables or not ? Alex _______________________________________________ cmake-developers mailing list cmake-developers@cmake.org http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
