Hi Christoph, Thanks for the information, and again, thanks for your hard work packaging ParaView.
Best regards, Cory On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Christoph Grüninger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Cory, > thanks for link to the developer mailing list discussion. I think CMake 3.3 > is better then > 3.5, because at least the last Leap 42.1 release provides that. > I patched ParaView to require CMake 3.0 and it builds fine. I will package > ParaView 5.1 > that way and hope you reduce the requirement to CMake 3.3 for the next time. > >> Based on that discussion, loosening the requirement to CMake 3.0 does >> not appear to be feasible. > > CMake 3.0 helped to clean some code paths, nothing really complicated. You > have > to check whether you can get other improvements from newer CMake version by > copying the relevant parts and calling that instead of the built-in functions. > So 3.0 might be feasible and reasonable. > > Bye > Christoph -- Cory Quammen R&D Engineer Kitware, Inc. _______________________________________________ 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 ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview
