Anything left to do in CMake ?

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Sunday 11 March 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Yury G.  Kudryashov <urkud.urkud <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I think things are looking quite good, and we got most of the things we
> > > wanted to get into cmake in.
> > 
> > I think that we need dependent Export sets support.
> > 
> > Example: strigi.
> > The project consists of several repos. You can either build these repos
> > one by one, or download all using "meta" repo, and build the whole
> > package.
> > 
> > I think that each component (libstreamanalyzer etc.) should install its
> > own Export file. But if you build the whole project, you get a library
> > in export B that depends on a library in export A.
> 
> I agree that this bug would have to be solved in the CMake release that
> frameworks depends on. It's probably too late for CMake 2.8.8 though.
> 
> The reason I thought it could be useful is that I think one repo per
> framework might actually be more granular than we want. For example, if we
> have a KMultiProcess shared library framework (with KSharedDataCache,
> KDBusInterprocessLock etc) and a multiprocess runtime framework (eg
> containing ktimezoned, klauncher maybe and any other basic stuff that is
> useful for multiprocess, then they could all be in the same repo.

I agree it would be nice to have it.
But I'm not sure it is really necessary.
AFAICS it is necessary if one source tree is used to generate multiple install 
packages.
One could say in this case these should also be separate projects, then this 
problem doesn't exist.

But yes, it would be nice to have it.

Alex