Hi there,
I suspect I'm the culprit in this case. To give a bit of context, I
think the original recommendation was to the CMake ML
(http://cmake.3232098.n2.nabble.com/Help-with-Policy-CMP0026-disallow-LOCATION-target-property-td7589336.html)
and the other instance was a recent StackOverflow answer
(http://stackoverflow.com/a/30669105/2556117). I'd hardly class the SO
answer as a recommendation... but that's by the by :-)
As a CMake user, I have a couple of observations here.
I don't think any amount of documentation will entirely solve this.
Compare the docs for policies
(http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.3/manual/cmake-policies.7.html) with
those for file(GLOB ...)
(http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.3/command/file.html) and
link_directories
(http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.3/command/link_directories.html) All
of these discourage the use of these features in some way (probably most
noticeable for file(GLOB ...) due to the highlighting), but there are
often answers on SO which recommend them.
Having said that, I think the docs for policies is the least likely to
be read of the three. I'm only guessing, but I expect users will be
more likely to hit the page for the specific policy they're interested
in, along with the page for the cmake_policy command
(http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.3/command/cmake_policy.html). None
of these pages gives even a hint that setting a policy to OLD is
discouraged.
From my own perspective, runtime warnings would be the best way to
encourage me to use a different option other than setting a policy to OLD.
Again as an outsider, if setting CMP0002 to OLD to allow duplicate
target names is a guaranteed bug regardless of OS or compiler, I can't
see a reason to continue supporting it.
Cheers,
Fraser.
On 08/06/2015 21:52, Brad King wrote:
On 06/08/2015 04:43 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
In fact, I added that in response to someone on SO recommending setting
policies to OLD and pointed them to the commit and the generated docs, and
they're still recommending the same thing as SO answers. Policies are alive
too long to be credible pending error-conditions. They look like - and are
treated as - feature toggles.
Given the existing docs you quoted I don't think any further docs
such as release notes will help. We would need to add a runtime
warning to draw attention to pending removal. It would be different
than the current "not set" warning and instead be "not set to NEW".
-Brad
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Kitware offers various services to support the CMake community. For more
information on each offering, please visit:
CMake Support: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/support.html
CMake Consulting: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/consulting.html
CMake Training Courses: http://cmake.org/cmake/help/training.html
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
