Re: Re: [CMake] What about...

> Von: Thomas Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >  > On Friday 26 May 2006 17:55, you wrote: > > >A 'configure' script generator that will just convert between the > > > (good old) configure and the cmake foo.  Makes it actually possible > > > to discover what features there are without consulting online

[CMake] Where is QT_QTCORE_LIBRARY_DEBUG?

Dear Sir/Madam,I am a beginner for Qt and CMake. I am trying to generate a makefile for the Qt GUI example in VTK 5.0 via CMakeSetup. However, CMakeSetup complains that QT_QTCORE_LIBRARY_DEBUG is not found. I am using Qt-OpenSource-Win-Binary version. Does anyone know where I can find all the Qt de

[CMake] compiler detection order

I have g77 and ifort fortran compilers installed under linux.  For a few projects I would like to force the use of ifort if available.  Is there a way to "suggest" the order the cmake automatic detection looks for fortran compilers? ___ CMake mailing lis

Re: [CMake] What about...

At 10:56 AM 5/28/2006, Thomas Zander wrote: >On Sunday 28 May 2006 15:39, James Mansion wrote: >> >Its when I type 'make' it takes upto a minute before it actually >> > starts with the first gcc, even if I typed make moments before. (I >> > just typed 'make | less' this time). >> >> That looks like

Re: [CMake] CMake + Native Builds, Relationship

At 10:32 AM 5/28/2006, Steve Johns wrote: >In another thread, Brandon wrote: > >>CMake is a build system generator; that means the drill is always going to be >>CMake + some other build system. It's never going to be CMake by itself. > >This statement seems to sum up the strength and purpose of C

Re: [CMake] What about...

On Sunday 28 May 2006 15:39, James Mansion wrote: > >Its when I type 'make' it takes upto a minute before it actually > > starts with the first gcc, even if I typed make moments before. (I > > just typed 'make | less' this time). > > That looks like make's performance problem doesn't it? I don't s

[CMake] CMake + Native Builds, Relationship

In another thread, Brandon wrote: CMake is a build system generator; that means the drill is always going to be CMake + some other build system. It's never going to be CMake by itself. This statement seems to sum up the strength and purpose of CMake. This strikes me a a big-picture point t

RE: [CMake] What about...

>When I change a couple of header files I suddenly see it reconfiguring for >no apparent reason. Is the generated makefile thinking that there is a change in CMakeLists.txt somewhere? Surely cmake is actually out of the picture unless you tell it to rebuild the makefiles? >Its when I type 'make

Re: [CMake] What about...

Thomas Zander wrote: But, to directly answer your assertion; the most human feeling of me feeling lost when there is something new to learn is not the reason for my emails here. I honestly find it counter productive of you to go for that excuse. Its soo easy. The suggestions I made here are

[CMake] Suggestions about my usage of CMake

Hello, I would like to have suggestions/feedback about my usage of CMake for MSVC2005. I have little project with an executable and a dynamic library. I would like to generate either the debug and the release version of the dlls and exes files. So my CMakeLists.txt files looks like: CMakeList

RE: [CMake] CMake with wxWidgets on Linux

Hello Brian, I think for recent wxWidgets versions the best references for CMake based project building are by Jorgen Bodde and Jerry Fath based on initial work from Klaas Holwerda (please correct me if i am wrong), see: - http://www.wxwidgets.org/wiki/index.php/CMake, - http://wastebucket.

Re: [CMake] What about...

On Friday 26 May 2006 21:00, Brandon J. Van Every wrote: > > The problem with the use-(g)make decision is that you are stuck with > > using unintuitive variable names to alter the build process. > >   > Then dump it and develop with VC++.  Or some other compiler with a > better (or just different ;