Re: [CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

2010-08-20 Thread David Cole
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Mike McQuaid wrote: > > On 20 Aug 2010, at 13:09, David Cole wrote: > > > Sorry about that. The name was chosen when the functionality was > Mac-only, then we extended it to cover Windows/Linux. What name would you > suggest as "more discoverable" or "better"? > >

Re: [CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

2010-08-20 Thread Michael Wild
On 20. Aug, 2010, at 14:42 , Eric Noulard wrote: > 2010/8/20 David Cole : >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Mike McQuaid wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There's been some discussion on >>> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11126 and I raised the issue about >>> the BundleUtilities port to

Re: [CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

2010-08-20 Thread Eric Noulard
2010/8/20 Mike McQuaid : > > On 20 Aug 2010, at 13:09, David Cole wrote: > >> Not a big fan of this one either. Personally, I think it's stupid even to >> have differences between the build tree and the install tree. Now, with >> this, you'd have differences between the "make install" tree and t

Re: [CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

2010-08-20 Thread Eric Noulard
2010/8/20 David Cole : > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Mike McQuaid wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> There's been some discussion on >> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11126 and I raised the issue about >> the BundleUtilities port to Windows/Linux: the naming is so bad as to make >> this (prett

Re: [CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

2010-08-20 Thread Mike McQuaid
On 20 Aug 2010, at 13:09, David Cole wrote: > Sorry about that. The name was chosen when the functionality was Mac-only, > then we extended it to cover Windows/Linux. What name would you suggest as > "more discoverable" or "better"? I'd go for "InstallPrerequisites" personally, it seems to fit

Re: [CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

2010-08-20 Thread David Cole
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Mike McQuaid wrote: > Hi, > > There's been some discussion on > http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11126 and I raised the issue > about the BundleUtilities port to Windows/Linux: the naming is so bad as to > make this (pretty cool) feature completely undisc

[CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

2010-08-20 Thread Mike McQuaid
Hi, There's been some discussion on http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11126 and I raised the issue about the BundleUtilities port to Windows/Linux: the naming is so bad as to make this (pretty cool) feature completely undiscoverable. I assumed, as I'd think others would, that this woul