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.