Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> > but this still means that even if we start to >> > require cmake 2.8.7 for kdelibs4, we still need the standalone automoc >> > (which I don't feel like maintaining). >> >> Well, kdelibs4 is not really going to get any more releases. I'm not sure >> it makes sense to change the cmake requirement for it, but that's more a >> topic for kde-buildsystem. If you really meant frameworks branch, then >> I'd say we fix solid and move on. > > No, I meant kdelibs4. > Still people will continue to build against it for some time (it's not > even dead yet), and the cmake stuff in it should stay maintained. > This would be easier if there was only one group of files (the ones in > e-c-m), instead of two (kdelibs4 and e-c-m). > See the mail for the FindQtMobility.cmake review...
I'll look into it. > > ... >> There are a great deal of warnings like: >> >> /home/stephen/dev/src/grantlee/templates/lib/template.cpp:0: Note: No >> relevant classes found. No output generated. >> >> because moc is run on the cpp file (it is also run on the header of >> course). >> >> Is it possible to give a better warning from cmake in those cases? If >> not, it's probably a big deal. > > "not a big deal", right ? Yes, sorry this was a typo. I meant not it's not a big deal if no better warning is possible. Thanks, Steve. -- 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://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
