[cmake-developers] Making Config.cmake files easier to write

[Brad King]

On 2/16/2012 2:24 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>>     cmake_package_config
>
> We have already write_basic_config_version_file(), and I wanted to have the

In hindsight that name was poorly chosen.  I'd really like to see "package"
in the name because they are "package configuration files".  Otherwise
there is no indication it has anything to do with find_package.

> I was thinking about putting it into a file which may have a different name,
> maybe CMakeConfigHelpers.cmake, which should then also
> include(WriteBasicConfigVersionFile), so you get both when you include it.

The new module could include WriteBasicConfigVersionFile for
convenience.

>> Good.  Did you consider other prefixes?
>
> It should match with the other variable names which are generated, and they
> use the CONFIG_HELPER_ prefix.

I was asking if *all* the prefixes of generated variables for the entire
config file could use a different prefix, not just the INIT one.  If I
read the .in file and do not know what CONFIG_HELPER means I have no
indication that it comes from a magic macro that does not have CONFIG_HELPER
in its name.  If the prefix were configurable than "grep" in the source
tree would reveal the origin of the name because it would appear in the
call to the configuration macro.  Alternatively if the prefix were to
match part of the macro name it would be clear also.

>> Okay.  The set_and_check macro is perhaps overkill.  I've never
>> done an explicit existence check on such directories in a package
>> configuration file.
>
> Yes, but I think it's better to do it.

Sure.  Users who don't like it can just not call it.  I'd also like an
option to the macro to exclude it from appearing so that my package
configuration files do not add any macros.

-Brad