It took me a while to see it, but Alan is asking if LibAalkimia is correct or
if each call should be LibAlkimia. I can see how the double a could either
jump out at you or simply be not noticed.
On Nov 3, 2016 3:24 AM, Ralf Habacker <ralf.habac...@freenet.de> wrote:
>
> Am 03.11.2016 um 00:25 schrieb aga:
> > I don't know if this is/these are typos or deliberate, or even if
> > they're important, or fixed already, but, in this chunk, there are four
> > LibAalkimiaxx's.
> These are two variants to show how it could be performed:
>
> variant 1:
> > if(QT4_FOUND)
> >> find_package(LibAalkimia4)
> >> if(NOT LIBALKIMIA4_FOUND) [1]
> >> find_package(LibAalkimia)
> >> endif()
> >> else()
> >> find_package(LibAalkimia5)
> >> endif()
> [1] for alkimia 4.3.2 package
>
>
> variant 2 (without search for old alkimia package)
> >>
> >> if(QT4_FOUND)
> >> set(QT_SLOT 4)
> >> else()
> >> set(QT_SLOT 5)
> >> endif()
> >>
> >> find_package(LibAalkimia${QT_SLOT})
> Ralf
