On Sunday 19 February 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2012 16:18:00 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Sunday 19 February 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > > The only reason to distribute FindBlub for a CMake-aware project is
> > > > to wrap up find_package NO_MODULE to produce a
On Sunday, February 19, 2012 16:18:00 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Sunday 19 February 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > The only reason to distribute FindBlub for a CMake-aware project is
> > > to wrap up find_package NO_MODULE to produce a nicer message, but
> > > that
> > > is totally optional.
On Sunday 19 February 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I must have missed something here.
>
> On Friday, February 17, 2012 13:16:42 Brad King wrote:
> > On 2/17/2012 12:09 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > But another significant part of the reason is probably that beside
> > > upstreaming
Hi,
I must have missed something here.
On Friday, February 17, 2012 13:16:42 Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 12:09 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > But another significant part of the reason is probably that beside
> > upstreaming a module to cmake, there is no other "official" way to
> > distr
On Friday 17 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> > On 2/17/2012 5:05 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > I think the nicer MODULE_MODE and CONFIG_MODE keywords are not worth
> > > breaking backward compatibility of users projects (not cmake) thi
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 5:05 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > I think the nicer MODULE_MODE and CONFIG_MODE keywords are not worth
> > breaking backward compatibility of users projects (not cmake) this way.
>
> We can add them and document them in the new versi
On 2/17/2012 5:05 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
I think the nicer MODULE_MODE and CONFIG_MODE keywords are not worth breaking
backward compatibility of users projects (not cmake) this way.
We can add them and document them in the new version but not mention
them in error messages for now.
-Bra
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 4:01 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > There is now a branch FindPackage_CONFIG_MODE_MODULE_MODE which has the
> > two keywords, but doesn't change the behaviour yet.
> > So there wasn't a lot to change in the documentation or tests.
> > I
On 2/17/2012 4:01 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
There is now a branch FindPackage_CONFIG_MODE_MODULE_MODE which has the two
keywords, but doesn't change the behaviour yet.
So there wasn't a lot to change in the documentation or tests.
I'll do the modified behaviour together with the policy.
Loo
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2012 2:01 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> >>> Do you want me to add the new keywords ?
> >>> NO_MODULE == CONFIG_MODE == !MODULE == !NO_CONFIG
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:01 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Do you want me to add the new keywords ?
NO_MODULE == CONFIG_MODE == !MODULE == !NO_CONFIG_MODE
Yes, but I don't think NO_CONFIG_MODE is necessary. NO_
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 2:01 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Do you want me to add the new keywords ?
> > NO_MODULE == CONFIG_MODE == !MODULE == !NO_CONFIG_MODE
>
> Yes, but I don't think NO_CONFIG_MODE is necessary. NO_MODULE
> will become historical. Let's
On 2/17/2012 2:01 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Do you want me to add the new keywords ?
NO_MODULE == CONFIG_MODE == !MODULE == !NO_CONFIG_MODE
Yes, but I don't think NO_CONFIG_MODE is necessary. NO_MODULE
will become historical. Let's make the new ones consistent with
each other:
CONFIG_M
On Friday 17 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
> Ok :-)
>
> Should I do this by continuing in the FindPackage_ImprovedErrorMessages
> branch or create a new branch, branched away from
> FindPackage_ImprovedErrorMessages ?
I create a new branch.
Do you want me to add the new keywords ?
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 1:28 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> >> We can adjust it slightly to avoid the policy warning when FooConfig
> >>
> >> is found and Foo_DIR is set:
> >>- search for FindFoo.cmake, use if found
> >>- if not found, check new policy
On 2/17/2012 1:28 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
We can adjust it slightly to avoid the policy warning when FooConfig
is found and Foo_DIR is set:
- search for FindFoo.cmake, use if found
- if not found, check new policy setting
- if not set, enter config mode and emit both the policy wa
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 12:09 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > But another significant part of the reason is probably that beside
> > upstreaming a module to cmake, there is no other "official" way to
> > distribute Find- modules. So if somebody wrote a libblub,
On 2/17/2012 12:09 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
But another significant part of the reason is probably that beside upstreaming
a module to cmake, there is no other "official" way to distribute Find-
modules. So if somebody wrote a libblub, it is a relatively obvious choice to
install FindBlub.cm
On Friday 17 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
> But another significant part of the reason is probably that beside
> upstreaming a module to cmake, there is no other "official" way to
> distribute Find- modules. So if somebody wrote a libblub, it is a
> relatively obvious choice to inst
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 11:37 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> >>> developers use Find modules. Consider:
> >>>CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:7 (find_package):
> >>> No package configuration file for "ecm" found by names:
> >>>ecmConfig.cmake
> >>
On 2/17/2012 11:37 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
developers use Find modules. Consider:
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:7 (find_package):
No package configuration file for "ecm" found by names:
ecmConfig.cmake
ecm-config.cmake
Add the installation prefix of "ecm" to CMA
On Friday 17 February 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
...
> > Perhaps we can make the distinction between user and developer right
> > in the message. When there is no Find module the proper message that
> > a user sees should talk about ecm_DIR and C
On Friday 17 February 2012, Brad King wrote:
> On 2/17/2012 4:29 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > I collected the various error messages which can be produced in the
> > different cases:
> > * package not found
> > * package found, but version doesn't match
> >
> > * REQUIRED
> > * without
On 2/17/2012 4:29 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> I collected the various error messages which can be produced in the different
> cases:
> * package not found
> * package found, but version doesn't match
>
> * REQUIRED
> * without REQUIRED
>
> * find_package() with no Find-module present
> * find_
24 matches
Mail list logo
