[CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

Michael Wild themiwi at gmail.com
Fri Aug 20 09:00:15 EDT 2010


On 20. Aug, 2010, at 14:42 , Eric Noulard wrote:

> 2010/8/20 David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com>:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Mike McQuaid <mike at mikemcquaid.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> There's been some discussion on
>>> http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=11126 and I raised the issue about
>>> the BundleUtilities port to Windows/Linux: the naming is so bad as to make
>>> this (pretty cool) feature completely undiscoverable.
> 
> Agreed.
> I'm a user of neither BundleUtilities nor GetPrerequisites but
> the available documentation are too partial if not cryptic:
> 
> BundleUtilities:
> "A collection of CMake utility functions useful for dealing with .app
>       bundles on the Mac and bundle-like directories on any OS."
> 
> May be beginning with an improved doc for those existing
> "probably cool" tools would be a good start.
> 
>>> I assumed, as I'd think others would, that this would be somehow related
>>> to creating .app bundle clones on Linux or Windows, not fixing up the
>>> dependencies and installing them. I'd argue that anything relating to the
>>> latter really belongs in GetPrerequisites and should be named differently.
> 
> GetPrerequisite does not have such a good doc either:
> "This script provides functions to list the .dll, .dylib or .so files
>       that an executable or shared library file depends on.  (Its
>       prerequisites.)"
> 
> and then what should we do with that.
> 
> All this looks like valuable tools but you cannot get a clear picture
> of what they do until you read the content of the corresponding CMake file.
> 
>>> For backwards compatibility purposes, obviously the current naming will
>>> still need to work but is it possible to get some of this functionality
>>> documented and described in a better location?
>> Sorry about that. The name was chosen when the functionality was Mac-only,
>> then we extended it to cover Windows/Linux. What name would you suggest as
>> "more discoverable" or "better"?
> 
> May be beginning by enhancing the doc in the header of
> 
> BundleUtilities.cmake
> GetPrerequisites.cmake
> 
> would be a good start which would help us to find better names.

It's already reported and the patches are provided, they only need to be merged (assuming the docs didn't change in the meantime...):

http://cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=10747


Michael


More information about the CMake mailing list