[CMake] BundleUtilities naming and easing packaging

[Eric Noulard]

2010/8/20 Mike McQuaid <mike at mikemcquaid.com>:
>
> On 20 Aug 2010, at 13:09, David Cole wrote:

>
>> Not a big fan of this one either. Personally, I think it's stupid even to have differences between the build tree and the install tree. Now, with this, you'd have differences between the "make install" tree and the packaged install tree...? Why do you do this? Just to save devs some time at "make install" time? Or is there some other valid technical reason that my foggy morning brain isn't thinking of...?
>
> I tend to lean towards agreeing with you between install and build time, I think they should be the same. The thing for make install is that there's normally three use-cases here for open-source projects (this makes less sense for proprietary products):
>
> 1) Developer is building and editing code on their machine: in this case they will just use "make" and expect things to work from the build directory (I've filed bugs about this before, being issues with the PATH not being found/set for instance). In this case, the developer will have all the necessary libraries installed on their system.
>
> 2) A user downloads the source (for a tarball or version control) and uses "make install" to build everything and install it to the correct location for their personal use on that machine. In this case, they will have all the necessary libraries already installed and wouldn't expect them to be installed to that prefix.
>
> 3) A developer or user creates a binary package for distribution. In this case, they will have the various libraries already on their system but the end-user of the package won't. As a result, they will want to ensure that these are all distributed.
>
> In short, the difference between 2) and 3) only really matters for open-source projects but is the difference between installing from source or binary packages.