Chris Foster wrote:
> Mateusz: You may find the example layout I've attached useful if you're not
> needing to do code generation (just delete all the stuff to do with
> hello2.cpp).
Yes, it's very helpful ineed.
However, I'm generating some config headers (porting
autotools' approach: project.h.i
Hi Chris,
Yes, but no problem at all.
Thank you very much for all the details, they are very helpful.
Your approach looks good for our project, but letting myself to learn
more ideas like the one project.cmake vs CMakeLists.txt by Pau Garcia.
Mat
Chris Foster wrote:
> [ Ugh, I replied to this
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Chris Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles
> wrote:
> [...]
>> What are the advantages of this? Why don't you rename you
>> "project.cmake" files to "CMakeLists.txt" and use add_subdirectory on
>> those directories? I see no differ
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles
wrote:
[...]
> What are the advantages of this? Why don't you rename you
> "project.cmake" files to "CMakeLists.txt" and use add_subdirectory on
> those directories? I see no difference :-?
The difference is becase custom code generation rules
> I've grappled with the same problem recently when rewriting the build system
> for the aqsis renderer project. I certainly don't know what's *best*, but I
> did find a solution which somewhat satisfied me. Let's suppose we have two
> individual subdirectories, libA and libB, and we want to comb
[ Ugh, I replied to this as a private message to Mateusz by mistake.
I'm forwarding it to the list as I hope it may be of general interest. Sorry! ]
-- Forwarded message --
From: Chris Foster
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: [CMake] Targets organisation of complex
