Re: [CMake] pkg-config file format versus CMake packages

> On May 26, 2018, at 5:08 AM, Lectem > wrote: > > > Hi, > I’ll start by saying that I love the fact we’re now talking about a common > representation of packages ! > > The reason I say this is that extending pkg-config seems like it would help > adoption rather th

[CMake] cmake -E env equivalent in 2.8

Hi, I am new to cmake and i am working with CMakefile with -E env option written for 3.1 and I am backporting it to 2.8. What is the compatible or equivalent option in 2.8? https://github.com/CZ-NIC/turris-os/blob/master/package/system/ubus/patches/001-python.patch The line I am dealing with i

Re: [CMake] pkg-config file format versus CMake packages

Hi, I often found pkg-config files to be even wrong. Many library authors do not seem to know the rules for transitive linking. Often, the differences between static and dynamic linking is not or wrongly expressed in .pc files. Cross compiling with pkg-config is also not being the most fun unle

Re: [CMake] pkg-config file format versus CMake packages

Hi, I’ll start by saying that I love the fact we’re now talking about a common representation of packages ! ➢ The reason I say this is that extending pkg-config seems like it would help adoption rather then creating a completely new format. There is already a good portion of open source projec