On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 21:19 +0200, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 June 2008, J wrote:
> > Greetings all!
> >
> > I've been sold on cmake. From what I gather, it's hands down better than
> > automake and family. However, I do have a problem with not having a
> > configure script.
> >
> >
On Tuesday 24 June 2008, J wrote:
> Greetings all!
>
> I've been sold on cmake. From what I gather, it's hands down better than
> automake and family. However, I do have a problem with not having a
> configure script.
>
> A couple of the main benefits of having a configure script are letting
> the
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Mathieu Malaterre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just FYI, I have started working on integrating the new components
> stuff in the debian package generation.
Great! Please tell me if you run into any cases where the design of
the CPack components system fails to supp
J wrote:
There was a bug with the kde4 packages in hardy where it didn't include
ccmake, which is probably why I didn't check it out.
It definitely seems to do the trick for what I'm looking for. Thanks so
much guys I appreciate it!
There is always cmake -i, which does a question and answer t
There was a bug with the kde4 packages in hardy where it didn't include
ccmake, which is probably why I didn't check it out.
It definitely seems to do the trick for what I'm looking for. Thanks so
much guys I appreciate it!
j
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 12:46 -0400, Corrin Meyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2
One way to get the "optional" packages compiled is to add something
like the following to your cmakelists.txt file:
OPTION(BUILD_FOO "Option to build Foo subproject" ON)
OPTION(BUILD_BAR "option to build Bar subproject" OFF)
IF (BUILD_FOO)
ADD_SUBDIRECTORY( ${Foo_Dir} )
ENDIF (BUILD_FOO)
IF
On Tuesday 24 June 2008 20:27:53 J wrote:
> Greetings all!
>
> I've been sold on cmake. From what I gather, it's hands down better than
> automake and family. However, I do have a problem with not having a
> configure script.
>
> A couple of the main benefits of having a configure script are lett
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:27 PM, J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings all!
>
> I've been sold on cmake. From what I gather, it's hands down better than
> automake and family. However, I do have a problem with not having a
> configure script.
>
> A couple of the main benefits of having a config
Greetings all!
I've been sold on cmake. From what I gather, it's hands down better than
automake and family. However, I do have a problem with not having a
configure script.
A couple of the main benefits of having a configure script are letting
the user/package maintainer choose portions of a pro
Sorry for the noise.. Just trying to troubleshoot something with
gmail...
--
Mike Jackson
imikejackson & gmail * com
___
CMake mailing list
CMake@cmake.org
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
10 matches
Mail list logo