> For CPack a source generator is a binary generator which is told to package
> a directory which happens to contains the source.
Interesting ...
Do I need to introduce additional options with the prefix "CPACK_SOURCE_"
for the package generators in my build configuration?
> Basically package s
2014-11-11 19:02 GMT+01:00 SF Markus Elfring
:
> >http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/manual/cpack.1.html
>
> Can it be automatically determined which of the available archive and
> package generators
> support a distinction between source and binary files?
>
None of them are distinguishing
>http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/manual/cpack.1.html
Can it be automatically determined which of the available archive and package
generators
support a distinction between source and binary files?
Regards,
Markus
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Please keep messages on-topic and check t
2014-11-11 17:55 GMT+01:00 SF Markus Elfring
:
> >>
> https://github.com/elfring/OTCL/blob/eca1ed17f70176435c8575eb55a67cca33926905/package_settings.cmake#L1
> >
> > That may be sufficient for creating a .deb. For integration into Debian,
> you should read
> > http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian
>> https://github.com/elfring/OTCL/blob/eca1ed17f70176435c8575eb55a67cca33926905/package_settings.cmake#L1
>
> That may be sufficient for creating a .deb. For integration into Debian, you
> should read
> http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_policy.html/
Thanks for your link.
Am 11. November 2014 08:50:26 MEZ, schrieb SF Markus Elfring
:
>> There is no need for a .src.rpm when you don't embed the build rules
>into it.
>> However, that only makes sense for distributions that have a package
>maintainer for the software,
>> creates a source package with all build option
- Original Message -
> On 11/7/14, Clinton Stimpson wrote:
> > On Friday, November 07, 2014 03:50:32 PM Eric Wing wrote:
> >> I have a build and packaging system where I can distribute (mostly)
> >> standalone apps for Linux desktop. I am using the default CPack
> >> installer which crea
Hi all.
I am not using OpenBLAS so this is really just a tangential comment, but I
can understand that in a production setting, it can be easier to update a
library than to update something as fundamental to the build process as
CMake. To the point where the former is authorisable on a much lower
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Michael Jackson
wrote:
>
> Because if you do this then OpenBlas is instantly supported by currently
> released versions of CMake. If you are asking for an update to the core of
> CMake then you are going to have to wait for the next release of CMake and
> then A
