On Dec 12, 2007 10:09 AM, Javier Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Well, these don't answer much. The first message (from Andrew) mentions > an option I have considered: writing everything on a script and calling > the script. > > However, I thought it would be possible with cmake.
"It" probably is. But you know, these quoting and escape issues are... really really boring. > The wiki just says: > "You may need \\ instead of \ due to CMake argument processing. \" works > fine in SET statements, but you may need \\\" in some CMake functions. > It can get hairy. This section needs elaboration." Yeah, I wrote that on the wiki. Nobody paid me to do it. I figured it was better than the complete absence of information on the wiki that previously existed. > And that explains absolutely nothing. You're absolutely right. My comment on the wiki says so. It's a placeholder. The usual way to deal with such things is to pore over the mailing list archives and hack, hack, hack until you come up with an answer. Then, if your labor yields a clear solution, and you still have energy left over, you can improve the wiki documentation for the next poor slob who happens by. But nobody's paying anyone to do that, so there's always this tradeoff of whether you're going to pay attention to other people's needs, or your own needs. I've got my own needs to worry about right now. Such is the nature of open source. Call me jaded, but part of my expectation in open source is that when $0 is changing hands, people will do some of the explaining and hacking themselves. I've reiterated / harped on the need for "Chapter oriented" documentation for a long time. That's how you'd properly reposit information about quoting, escape, and VERBATIM behavior, so that other people can find and utilize it. But we don't have the infrastructure for that at present. Nothing's stopping anyone from overhauling the wiki and making it chapter oriented, except for the fact that it's a ton of work that nobody wants to do for $0. The CMake 2.6 documentation in CVS is a significant improvement over the 2.4.7 documentation. It has web hyperlinks for commands, it breaks Modules into their own section, and CMake variables are actually getting documented. These are big improvements. But there's still nothing chapter oriented, so finding certain kinds of information will continue to be problematic. I'm really glad there's as much improvement as there is though. The documentation is clearly moving forwards. > That is precisely the problem I > have and I tried many diferent things but none seemed to work. > > Now, on a note... this problem appeared after I had been trying to do > something that I think can't be done with cmake. I will ask that > question but I would like to know how to solve this one. Through hacking, one finds the bleeding edge of CMake. When I've found the bleeding edge, I try to obtain 1 of 2 results: - an approach that works. If it's hairy, I may file a feature request. - a bug that's reproducible. In which case, I file a bug report. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list [email protected] http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
