On 2010-08-14 18:59+0200 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Saturday 14 August 2010, you wrote:
...
find_package command, it makes a lot of sense to use that same
exact-case name as a prefix for the variables set by that find module.
Or in other words: I don't feel like going through the 67 find-m
On Saturday 14 August 2010, you wrote:
...
> find_package command, it makes a lot of sense to use that same
> exact-case name as a prefix for the variables set by that find module.
> My hope is that with the conversion pain removed,
I'm afraid this wouldn't remove my personal (KDE's) conversion pa
On 2010-08-14 16:25+0200 Eric Noulard wrote:
I know this may seems overkill, because we are only speaking about
ExactCase vs UPPERCASE, but if we take the backward compatibilty
seriously and want to progress towards to ExactCMake, may be it's
a "possible idea".
Now I think I just unveil myself
2010/8/14 Alexander Neundorf :
> On Friday 13 August 2010, you wrote:
>> On 08/13/2010 03:32 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> > Which means that if we would switch to Exact case, there would be a
>> > mixture of ExactCase and UPPERCASE for years
>>
>> In that case you should never be writing any CM
On Friday 13 August 2010, you wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 03:32 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > Which means that if we would switch to Exact case, there would be a
> > mixture of ExactCase and UPPERCASE for years
>
> In that case you should never be writing any CMake commands in lower
> case because a
On 08/13/2010 03:32 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Which means that if we would switch to Exact case, there would be a
> mixture of ExactCase and UPPERCASE for years
In that case you should never be writing any CMake commands in lower
case because at one time 100% of CMake code used upper case co
On Wednesday 11 August 2010, Brad King wrote:
> On 08/11/2010 04:02 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> > 2010/8/11 Alexander Neundorf :
> >> Well, I still think the UPPERCASE_ prefix also has it advantages, I
> >> don't have to remember the exact case of the module (was it FindLibXml2
> >> or FindLibXML2 or
On Thursday 12 August 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 August 2010, Eric Noulard wrote:
> ...
>
> > 3) Review existing Modules and set-up "compatibility" missing vars
> > in them if needed.
> >
> > You'll find attached a python script which does a "raw" check
> > on any file
On Wednesday 11 August 2010, Eric Noulard wrote:
...
> 3) Review existing Modules and set-up "compatibility" missing vars
> in them if needed.
>
> You'll find attached a python script which does a "raw" check
> on any file given as argument which would help for 3).
>
> currently
> checkModule
On 08/11/2010 04:02 PM, Eric Noulard wrote:
> 2010/8/11 Alexander Neundorf :
>> Well, I still think the UPPERCASE_ prefix also has it advantages, I don't
>> have
>> to remember the exact case of the module (was it FindLibXml2 or FindLibXML2
>> or Findlibxml2 or FindLibxml2, the variables are all j
2010/8/11 Alexander Neundorf :
> On Tuesday 10 August 2010, Brad King wrote:
>> On 08/10/2010 05:14 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> > I think it is still true for most find-modules, I think there are only a
>> > few exceptions, mostly Boost and Subversion.
>> > Checking... ok, also PostgreSQL, Lib
On Tuesday 10 August 2010, Brad King wrote:
> On 08/10/2010 05:14 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > I think it is still true for most find-modules, I think there are only a
> > few exceptions, mostly Boost and Subversion.
> > Checking... ok, also PostgreSQL, LibArchive (they are both new, right ?),
On 2010-08-10 23:14+0200 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Tuesday 10 August 2010, Brad King wrote:
On 08/07/2010 05:25 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
diff --git a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
index 58a179d..30220d1 100644
--- a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
+++ b/Modul
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Brad King wrote:
> On 08/10/2010 05:14 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> I think it is still true for most find-modules, I think there are only a few
>> exceptions, mostly Boost and Subversion.
>> Checking... ok, also PostgreSQL, LibArchive (they are both new, right
On 08/10/2010 05:14 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> I think it is still true for most find-modules, I think there are only a few
> exceptions, mostly Boost and Subversion.
> Checking... ok, also PostgreSQL, LibArchive (they are both new, right ?),
> ImageMagick and Java set the exact-case _FOUND
On Tuesday 10 August 2010, Brad King wrote:
> On 08/07/2010 05:25 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > diff --git a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
> > index 58a179d..30220d1 100644
> > --- a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
> > +++ b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
> > @@ -2,7 +2
2010/8/10 Mathieu Malaterre :
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Brad King wrote:
>> On 08/07/2010 05:25 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>>
>> find_package(Subversion)
>>
>> I would expect to write
>>
>> if(Subversion_FOUND)
>> ... ${Subversion_SVN_EXECUTABLE} ...
>> endif()
>>
>> and not th
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Brad King wrote:
> On 08/07/2010 05:25 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> diff --git a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
>> index 58a179d..30220d1 100644
>> --- a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
>> +++ b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
>> @@ -2,7
On 08/07/2010 05:25 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> diff --git a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
> index 58a179d..30220d1 100644
> --- a/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
> +++ b/Modules/FindSubversion.cmake
> @@ -2,7 +2,12 @@
> # The module defines the following variables:
19 matches
Mail list logo
