On 02/21/2011 08:29 PM, Kristopher Gamrat wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:11 PM, David C. Rankin
> <drankinatty@...> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> "More than happy sounds like a dangerous mental condition. 'We had to
> put Dave in the mental home... he was more than happy.'" --George
> Carlin
> 
<snip>

  I escaped ... :p

> I think that's what Samelian was working on with that link. With just
> two devs (one of which doesn't know much about cmake), it could take
> awhile to get the "recipe" together. We also need to keep in mind that
> each package is going to have some specific options that won't work in
> all packages... some options might work in a few packages, or maybe
> just one, so the person doing each specific package would need to
> figure out those.
> 

Yes, your 100% correct on the individual module specific needs. That's why I was
thinking along the lines of a 'minimal cmake recipe' that you could then dig
into the configure.in/(other files) for the individual modules and then plug it
into the top-level CMakeLists.txt or in the
CMakeLists.txt|cmake/modules/(whatever) files for the subdirs.

I'll go to trinity-desktop on freenode and see if I can get an answer to the
question:

"If I were going to look at the cmake setup for an existing trinity module that
I could use as a quasi-template to adapt to other modules that need to be ported
--> Which existing Trinity module would provide a good reference to use?"

If I can get an answer to that, then I can feel confident that I'm looking in
the right place.

It's kind of a twist on the old adage, "it doesn't matter how fast you can run
-- if you're running in the wrong direction, you will never make it to the
finish line" :)

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.