RFC: replacing MacroLogFeature.cmake with FeatureSummary.cmake

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Thursday 14 July 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Thursday 14 July 2011, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 July 2011 03:42:01 Michael Jansen wrote:
> > > On Thursday 14 July 2011 10:49:50 Ian Wadham wrote:
> > > > On 14/07/2011, at 5:16 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > What do you think of this ?
> > > > > More wishes ?
> > > > > Should it do it in a different way ?
> > > > 
> > > > Very nice.  I especially like the PURPOSE concept.
> > > > 
> > > > As we discussed before, in connection with use of OpenAL sound
> > > > in some games, could it be possible to have grades of requirement
> > > > in between REQUIRED and OPTIONAL?  They would not bomb out
> > > > the cmake run, but should issue some stronger message that the
> > > > requirement was not met than just saying it was "optional".
> > > 
> > > I would suggest RECOMMENDED. Like it works without but we think its
> > > really less useful then.
> > > 
> > > OPTIONAL would be stuff then that enabled additional functionality that
> > > is not really needed for all of us. like something that add iphone
> > > support. not everyone has one.
> > 
> > Several packaging systems has 3 levels of relations.
> > stuff that must be there.
> > 
> >      RPM-language: Requires. Deb-language: Depends.
> > 
> > optional stuff that should be there by default on normal systems
> > 
> >      RPM-language: Recommends. Deb-language: Recommends
> > 
> > Optional stuff that gives something extra
> > 
> >      RPM-language: Suggests. Deb-language: Suggests.
> > 
> > Maybe we could be inspired by that?
> > 
> > Note that on debian systems, apt and aptitude installs Depends and
> > Recommends by default, and allows Recommends to be removed without
> > removing other package.
> > Yum don't know about Recommends nor Suggests and just installs Required
> > packages.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback :-)
> So, levels would be:
> * REQUIRED
> * RECOMMENDED
> * OPTIONAL
> 
> Should the output be
> 
> Missing REQUIRED packages:
> * A
> * B
> * C
> 
> Missing RECOMMENDED packages:
> * E
> * F
> * G
> 
> or would
> 
> Missing packages:
> * A (REQUIRED)
> * B (REQUIRED)
> * C (REQUIRED)
> * E (RECOMMENDED)
> * F (RECOMMENDED)
> * G (RECOMMENDED)
> 
> be also ok ?
> I guess the first option is easier to read (for humans), while the second
> would be easier to parse (for a program).
> 
> Now, anybody feels like giving this a shot ?
> I'm maintaining that file currently in cmake, so I can simply commit/push
> it, and I'd happily hand maintainership over :-)

Ok, this is now in cmake git master.
Please give it a try, so it will have everything we need in the next cmake 
release (2.8.6).

Alex