On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 10:59 +0100, Eric Noulard wrote:
> I think this one is acceptable since it may be considered a bug
> (you may open one exactly for that purpose)
> to use summary when you expect full 'description'.
>
> The then almost backward compatible algorithm would be:
>
> 1) use CPA
2011/11/2 Erik Hofman :
> On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 11:47 +0100, Eric Noulard wrote:
>> I'll review it and probably merge it soon, since this looks reasonable.
>> Note however that with CPackRPM you have both
>>
>> CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_SUMMARY
>> and
>> CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_DESCRIPTION
>>
>> whereas for DEB
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 11:47 +0100, Eric Noulard wrote:
> I'll review it and probably merge it soon, since this looks reasonable.
> Note however that with CPackRPM you have both
>
> CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_SUMMARY
> and
> CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_DESCRIPTION
>
> whereas for DEB you don't have summary, just:
>
2011/11/1 Erik Hofman :
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm new to this list and just recently started to use CMake and CPack.
> So far I'm very pleased but there's one thing that I think could use
> some improvement;
>
> As far as I van see (from Wiki) the RPM generating backend of CPack use
You can get up to date d
Hi,
I'm new to this list and just recently started to use CMake and CPack.
So far I'm very pleased but there's one thing that I think could use
some improvement;
As far as I van see (from Wiki) the RPM generating backend of CPack uses
CPACK_PACKAGE_DESCRIPTION_FILE if CPACK_RPM_PACKAGE_DESCRIPTI
