On Wednesday 08 June 2011, Brad King wrote:
> On 6/8/2011 2:08 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > This would make the options available for cmake-based projects more
> > consistent.
> > This issue comes up regularly from new users.
>
> The option() command adds options. The add_subdirectory comman
On Wednesday 08 June 2011, Brad King wrote:
> On 6/8/2011 2:59 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > The "two things" are
> > - BSD licensing, we did that 3 years ago:
> > http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=automoc.git&a=commit&h=78fdba1e2d96bc455125317
> > 48ffb770cb1124798 -and porting to STL+cmsys, we did
Alex Neundorf wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2011, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> Clinton Stimpson wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:59:36 pm Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> So maybe we could step back and
>> look from a slightly greater distance at this. What would such a scanner
>> need to know? A
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
...
> At build time, the logic is complex enough and it also has to be really
> fast so that this should IMO be done in the C++.
> It could either be a -E automoc option, or a -P
> CMakeAutomoc.cmake script, which then calls a new automoc() funct
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Right now this is done by adding an extra target _automoc to
> > every target.
> > If I added a custom command for every source file, which would create
> > basically a timestamp file, and run automoc just on this source file, I
> > would get the
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=12259
==
Reported By:Jesse Beder
Assigned To:
> On Thursday 09 June 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> ...
>> At build time, the logic is complex enough and it also has to be really
>> fast so that this should IMO be done in the C++.
>> It could either be a -E automoc option, or a -P
>> CMakeAutomoc.cmake script, which then calls a new automoc
On 6/9/2011 2:58 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> This wish comes mainly from packagers, not from the developers themselves.
> I am sure packagers would be happy if they had one consistent way to disable
> every package any cmake checks for with a standardized option.
This is a nice goal, but I do
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=12260
==
Reported By:Johannes Stallkamp
Assigned To:
On 6/9/2011 4:12 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> AFAIK depending on generated files via the #include does not work/is not
> reliable (that's why generated files need to be added to the target).
For the Makefile generators, each target builds in three steps:
(1) Generate all custom command output
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Brad King wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 4:12 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > AFAIK depending on generated files via the #include does not work/is not
> > reliable (that's why generated files need to be added to the target).
>
> For the Makefile generators, each target builds in
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Brad King wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 2:58 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > This wish comes mainly from packagers, not from the developers
> > themselves. I am sure packagers would be happy if they had one
> > consistent way to disable every package any cmake checks for with a
>
On 6/9/2011 8:50 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Calling FindQt4 in some directory with components A and B, and in some other
> directory with component C, and the second one doesn't do anything because
> the
> first one has already set something to "I am done" already so the second one
> doesn
On 6/9/2011 8:47 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> So, if I would create a dummy foo.automoc file from automoc, and added this
> to
> the target, this would make sure that any files created as "side-effects" of
> this custom command would already exist when any source files are compiled ?
Yes. I
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Brad King wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 8:50 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>>> What if the FindFoo.cmake script calls find_package(Bar) and does
>>> not require it but the project also does find_package(Bar) and does? I'm
>>> sure there are more cases I haven't listed here.
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 01:23:09 am Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 June 2011, Brad King wrote:
> > On 6/8/2011 2:59 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > The "two things" are
> > > - BSD licensing, we did that 3 years ago:
> > > http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=automoc.git&a=commit&h=78fdb
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=12261
==
Reported By:Pino Toscano
Assigned To:
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://www.vtk.org/Bug/view.php?id=12262
==
Reported By:Amine Khaldi
Assigned To:
=
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=12263
==
Reported By:Clinton Stimpson
Assigned To:
19 matches
Mail list logo
