2010/8/20 Mike McQuaid <m...@mikemcquaid.com>: > > On 20 Aug 2010, at 13:09, David Cole wrote:
> >> Not a big fan of this one either. Personally, I think it's stupid even to >> have differences between the build tree and the install tree. Now, with >> this, you'd have differences between the "make install" tree and the >> packaged install tree...? Why do you do this? Just to save devs some time at >> "make install" time? Or is there some other valid technical reason that my >> foggy morning brain isn't thinking of...? > > I tend to lean towards agreeing with you between install and build time, I > think they should be the same. The thing for make install is that there's > normally three use-cases here for open-source projects (this makes less sense > for proprietary products): > > 1) Developer is building and editing code on their machine: in this case they > will just use "make" and expect things to work from the build directory (I've > filed bugs about this before, being issues with the PATH not being found/set > for instance). In this case, the developer will have all the necessary > libraries installed on their system. > > 2) A user downloads the source (for a tarball or version control) and uses > "make install" to build everything and install it to the correct location for > their personal use on that machine. In this case, they will have all the > necessary libraries already installed and wouldn't expect them to be > installed to that prefix. > > 3) A developer or user creates a binary package for distribution. In this > case, they will have the various libraries already on their system but the > end-user of the package won't. As a result, they will want to ensure that > these are all distributed. > > In short, the difference between 2) and 3) only really matters for > open-source projects but is the difference between installing from source or > binary packages. >From your analysis, the "Get Me all dependencies for my binary package" looks a lot more like a packaging problem i.e. the CPack job than a building & install problem (CMake job). Yours script etc... could?should? be handled by CPack itself if I do something like: cpack -D CPACK_PACKAGE_EMBBED_PREREQUISITES -G TGZ this do not change HOW you do it (cmake script can be runned by cpack etc..) but WHEN you do it? Why shall I decide in my CMakeLists.txt if I want to build a "standalone" package ? -- Erk Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
