[CMake] Finding Python3
loose at astron.nl
Thu Jul 22 08:17:58 EDT 2010
That sounds like a good solution. It is probably the cleanest way to
solve this controversy. OTOH, it adds two extra keywords that, of
course, are not used in existing (now sometimes failing) Find macros.
IMHO, solving the issue by changing CMake's behaviour would be
preferable, using a policy to switch between old and new behaviour.
However, I can see that not everyone is convinced that that would be the
way to go. So yes, NAMES_FIRST and PATHS_FIRST sound OK.
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:30 +0200, Michael Wild wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me of my old idea ;-)
> I think that would be the cleanest solution. Extract the loop body
into a function and then have two separate loops calling the same
> On 22. Jul, 2010, at 13:19 , David Cole wrote:
> > With respect to fixing 10718, *if* we fix it (and that's a big *if*
> > it's a sweeping change in behavior with largely unpredictable real
> > consequences), I suggest that we:
> > - have both loops in CMake,
> > - and that the default behavior remains the same as it is now,
> > - and that we activate the new behavior by adding new keyword
> > perhaps NAMES_FIRST and PATHS_FIRST
> > That way, stuff stays the same as it is now unless a "finder"
> > explicitly in *new* CMake code.
> > I'm going to add this as a note to 10718, and a pointer to this
> > if there's not already one there.
> > Thanks,
> > David Cole
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Michael Wild <themiwi at gmail.com>
> >> On 22. Jul, 2010, at 10:17 , Marcel Loose wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Hi Michael and others,
> >>> I mostly agree with what your saying. However, IMHO, you refer to
> >>> "perfect world" situation, where all Find modules properly use
> >>> to specify a version number and do not abuse NAMES for that.
> >>> I know that the current discussion focuses on FindPython; hence
> >>> subject ;-). However, in the "real world" quite a number of other
> >>> scripts are shipped as part of the CMake distribution that don't
> >>> this "perfect" scheme either.
> >>> So the real question should be, I guess: Should CMake be fixed by
> >>> swapping the paths and names loops in the FindXXX() functions
> >>> 10718)? Or should all abusing Find scripts be fixed?
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Marcel Loose.
> >> My question is more fundamental:
> >> How do I find the most recent version? Because that is why NAMES is
> >> "abused" in the first place.
> >> Michael
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Powered by www.kitware.com
> >> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> >> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> >> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
> >> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
> >> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
More information about the CMake