[CMake] CPack 101

[Mike McQuaid]

On 23 December 2010 14:47, Michael Wild <themiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I also did some contributions to homebrew, and I have to agree
> that patches get picked up really quickly. There's one big "but",
> though: Writing a formula is fairly simple. Just copy an existing
> formula that is similar to your favourite package, adapt it, build,
> commit and push. Many contributions are even much simpler: just update
> the version number, done. The learning curve is extremely low. Also,
> Homebrew is Mac-only, so contributors don't have to worry about all the
> exotic platforms out there. They are geeks and nerds who like to build
> stuff themselves. I'd bet that almost everybody using Homebrew is also
> contributing to the formulae, but I'm very sure that only a select few
> actually ever even take look into the internals and supply patches to
> this part of the project.

Yep, good points here, I do agree, I guess I was just trying to be
more specific.


> I think almost everything that fits into the CMake-picture would get
> accepted as long as it meets the quality standards, is documented and
> tested. Also, FindXXX.cmake module need a maintainer who commits to
> keeping them up-to-date and fixing issues that crop up.

Also good to know.

> Agreed. Sometimes the response is a bit disappointing. But this probably
> also has to do with the fact that one's personal pet-itch isn't as
> important to other people as one would like it to be ;-)

Sure, I get that from Homebrew too. I guess my point is that an
apathetic response is better than none at all. I'll use the developers
list for this now though.

> That said, I think it has become much easier to contribute than in CVS
> times. That was just a PITA. But there certainly is room for
> improvement, I agree with that. For one, the Wiki is plain inaccessible.
> E.g. above mentioned CMake/Git Wiki page is completely isolated. Nothing
> links there! Also, the Git/Workflow/Topic page is only reached from (1)
> this isolated CMake/Git page or from the ITK development documentation.
> Then, there is a clear lack of documentation on how to prepare a new
> test. Looking into the existing tests doesn't really help (at least that
> was my impression), as most of the stuff is so convoluted, it takes
> hours to pick apart.

I would agree with this. There's probably a fair amount of wiki
organisation that could be done (which I guess I could help with too)
and some of it could be rolled into the main CMake documentation
perhaps (such as variable descriptions).

I too would love more development/test documentation.

-- 
Mike McQuaid
http://mikemcquaid.com