On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Jesper Eskilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Brandon Van Every [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://www.nabble.com/SCons-Future-Directions-and-Thoughts-td15176258.html
you can learn tons
Hi
I read on the CMake wiki page that:
CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE is not initialized with a readable value at
configuration time. This is because the user is free to select a build
type at build time. Now in visual studio 6/visual studio 8 2005 we can
select the build type by selecting Debug/Release
Hi!
I have some trouble using a target's LOCATION property in order to build
a custom command. Maybe someone can tell me if this is by design and
whether I can do what I intend to.
I have a target that has a changed name as well as an added postfix for
the Debug configuration.
ADD_EXECUTABLE(
Hi
I read on the CMake wiki page that:
CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE is not initialized with a readable value at
configuration time. This is because the user is free to select a build
type at build time. Now in visual studio 6/visual studio 8 2005 we can
select the build type by selecting Debug/Release
Hi Brandon,
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon wrote:
I am starting to wonder if the whole Lua thing is indeed a red
herring, and what CMake really needs is the best possible website to
document, tutorialize, and market CMake. In other
With a make file generator, you do set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to Debug or Release
at configure time. Then, if you want both builds, you need to have two build
trees, one configured for Debug, the other for Release. The part of the Wiki
you are referring to only applies to IDEs that have their own
You could do this: (I haven't tried, but it should work unless you have a
bunch of fancy stuff in ${entry} that will need escaping...)
SET(commands )
FOREACH(entry ${entries})
SET(commands ${commands}
COMMAND ${entry}
)
ENDFOREACH(entry)
ADD_CUSTOM_COMMAND(TARGET POST_BUILD
On Tue, March 4, 2008 11:27, Malhotra, Anupam wrote:
CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE is not initialized with a readable value at
configuration time. This is because the user is free to select a build
type at build time. Now in visual studio 6/visual studio 8 2005 we can
select the build type by selecting
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Brad just documented this a few days ago:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake-commits/2008-February/00.html
This is a pretty horrible and drastic change with no heads up. Why was
the variable name change even needed? I have tons of code already coded
that
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 04.03.08 10:51:10, Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Brad just documented this a few days ago:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake-commits/2008-February/00.html
This is a pretty horrible and drastic change with no heads up. Why was the
A Dilluns 03 Març 2008, Matt Williams va escriure:
[]
I'm looking to see what you guys on this list think about me starting up
a 'cmake community' site, possibly featuring the following:
- News about releases
- News about projects' success stories etc.
- Simple beginner's tutorials
Visual Studio and Xcode are special cases where you can select in the
IDE which type of build to run. If you are generating Makefiles then
you need to set the CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE in cmake _before_ generating the
makefiles. The easiest way to achieve this is to run ccmake and then
select the
Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Andreas Pakulat wrote:
On 04.03.08 10:51:10, Gonzalo Garramuño wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Brad just documented this a few days ago:
http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake-commits/2008-February/00.html
This is a pretty horrible and drastic change with no
Just my 2 cents on this subject:
I don't think the CMake community is large enough to support a
second site, yet. I would rather see all those little snippets of
information, code, examples and tutorials on the CMake Wiki or in the
CMake documentation itself. I think if there is more
Filipe Sousa wrote:
Philip Lowman wrote:
Filipe Sousa wrote:
I have been using EXECUTABLE_OUTPUT_PATH but I recently found that
CMAKE_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY can do the same. Is
EXECUTABLE_OUTPUT_PATH going to be deprecated in 2.6?
Does CMAKE_RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY affect where .EXE
2.Closing statements need and empty () [at least they don't need to
duplicate the expressions any more].
Technically I believe this is possible. It has been asked for in the past.
Just a change to the yacc IIRC. I tend to not mind () personally.
7.It has no functions (implemented in the
Mike Jackson wrote:
Also, what happens when you stop being a student with lots of time to
keep the site going?
That's easy. If he did a good job, he gets hired by Kitware :)
--
Gonzalo Garramuño
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E
GeForce7300GT
Xubuntu Gutsy
On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Mike Jackson wrote:
Just my 2 cents on this subject:
I don't think the CMake community is large enough to support a
second site, yet. I would rather see all those little snippets of
information, code, examples and tutorials on the CMake Wiki or in the
CMake
I have a few find modules that I would be willing to contribute and I
hope other people may find helpful (see
http://crownandcutlass.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/crownandcutlass/trunk/Protocce/cmake/).
The ogg and vorbis ones may need some tweaking since those libs don't
have a default win32 path
On Tuesday 04 March 2008, packadal wrote:
I did used add_subdirectory, and i'm confused about why this does not work
:(
My cmakelists.txt looks like this :
root dir :
project(myproject)
ADD_SUBDIRECTORY(lib1)
ADD_SUBDIRECTORY(lib2)
TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES( lib1 lib2)
lib1 dir:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Fernando Cacciola
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nutshell: is it strategically a good idea to implement Lua support for
CMake?
- CMake script must be maintained indefinitely for a small percentage
of users no matter what the migration strategy
BTW, this
At 3/4/2008 12:28 PM, Brandon Van Every wrote:
- CMake script must be maintained indefinitely for a small percentage
of users no matter what the migration strategy
BTW, this point is intended to mean that CMake script must always be
supported, even under the most wildly optimistic
Hi out there!
First of all, thanks to Kitware and everyone contributing to CMake: great
work! I am working in a numerical research group and we often have to stick
together all kinds of highly-experimental software packages in various
languages and with the strangest requirements. Guess it's
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Gonzalo Garramuño
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Jackson wrote:
Also, what happens when you stop being a student with lots of time to
keep the site going?
That's easy. If he did a good job, he gets hired by Kitware :)
Does he? If it's Kitware's
Alexander Neundorf schrieb:
On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Christian Hoffmann wrote:
-- snip --
However, I am currently stuck and cannot find an answer in the Wiki or the
list:
I have two packages P_A and P_B, both built by CMake. To build P_B, the
following steps are required:
1. Build P_A - no
On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Christian Hoffmann wrote:
...
Thanks for the quick answer! The reply-delay in this list is just awesome!
It possible to perform it at compile-time, but itwould take *very* long -
Do you mean at compile time or was it a typo and you meant at cmake time ?
much longer
Alexander Neundorf schrieb:
On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Christian Hoffmann wrote:
...
Thanks for the quick answer! The reply-delay in this list is just awesome!
It possible to perform it at compile-time, but itwould take *very* long -
Do you mean at compile time or was it a typo and you meant at
Brandon Van Every wrote:
Ok, I think it's time to call the private behavior of Kitware employee
Meanwhile, let's get the CMake community involved.
No, lets not. This is not on topic with CMake at all. Everyone please
refrain from posting to this thread. Please keep this list to the topic
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
I'd say not yet. For now it would probably be better to just help working on
the wiki, there you can also write tutorials etc.
A solution for additional cmake modules is needed.
There is also a cmake site at google
There is, but nobody is interested to help with
Private mails should remain private.
Brandon Van Every wrote:
Ok, I think it's time to call the private behavior of Kitware employee
Sebastian Barre to the attention of the list. I've repeatedly asked
him to stop sending me private e-mail flames, and he simply will not
do it. This is the 3rd
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
This is a difficult decision for me. I have never been forced into a
situation like this. However, Brandon's posts to this list have been
disruptive to the community and myself. I have therefore come to the
conclusion that Brandon needs to be kicked off the list.
I hate to be drawn into this, but I agree with Rodolfo that banning
may be overly harsh. One important thing Brandon was reasonably
restrained at was personal attacks. He generally argued on issues and
though not everybody agreed he was arguing on issues that always
mattered, he generally
Why do we need to keep him around? If Bill has determined that such
steps are needed, then I must conclude that something more serious has
happened behind the scenes that we are not aware of.
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
Bill Hoffman wrote:
This is a difficult decision for me. I have never been forced into a
situation like this. However, Brandon's posts to this list have been
disruptive to the community and myself. I have therefore come to the
conclusion that Brandon needs to be kicked off the list.
I
Matt Williams wrote:
- Discussion forums
Please, no. Mailing lists (ahem: I mean gmane.org NNTP feeds) are *so*
much easier to deal with. There's already gmane and nabble* if people
must have a web interface. (* I don't know if cmake is on nabble, but
it could be if deemed necessary.)
--
On 2008-03-04 19:36-0300 Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
Bill Hoffman escreveu:
This is a difficult decision for me. I have never been forced into a
situation like this. However, Brandon's posts to this list have been
disruptive to the community and myself. I have therefore come to the
Hi,
attached you can find a patch which installs a freedesktop desktop file for
cmake-gui together with an icon, so that cmake should appear in the start
menus of KDE, Gnome, etc. (tested with KDE 3.5)
I'm not sure if the desktop file should just call cmake-gui in Exec, or if
it should be a
Ben Ratzlaff escreveu:
Why do we need to keep him around? If Bill has determined that such
steps are needed, then I must conclude that something more serious has
happened behind the scenes that we are not aware of.
Sometimes in the heat of an argument one can make a regrettable
decision. I
On Wednesday 05 March 2008, Ben Ratzlaff wrote:
Why do we need to keep him around? If Bill has determined that such
steps are needed, then I must conclude that something more serious has
happened behind the scenes that we are not aware of.
Yes, there was more, as Bill told me at FOSDEM.
Alex
Rodolfo Lima wrote:
Ben Ratzlaff escreveu:
Why do we need to keep him around? If Bill has determined that such
steps are needed, then I must conclude that something more serious has
happened behind the scenes that we are not aware of.
Sometimes in the heat of an argument one can make a
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Sebastien BARRE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3/3/2008 03:34 PM, Matt Williams wrote:
I'm looking to see what you guys on this list think about me starting up
a 'cmake community' site, possibly featuring the following:
I think I agree with the other posters,
I guess you missed my answer yesterday ...
If I'm not mistaken calling just cmake path_to_your_project_srcs doesn't set the
BUILD_TYPE to anything.
What about the following:
% cd build/your_project/debug;
% cmake path_to_project_srcs -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=DEBUG
% cd build/your_project/release
%
42 matches
Mail list logo
