[cmake-developers] User vs CMake include mismatch handling

[Marcus D. Hanwell]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:36 PM, David Cole <david.cole at kitware.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Bill Hoffman <bill.hoffman at kitware.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2010 2:18 PM, David Cole wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org
>>>> <mailto:neundorf at kde.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>>>>     > On Wednesday 13 October 2010, Bill Hoffman wrote:
>>>>     > > So, I think we have to use the new name approach.  Do we want
>>>>    to call it
>>>>     > > 2?  Or should we call it something else?
>>>>     > >
>>>>     > > Alex, do you have time to do this?
>>>>     >
>>>>     > I think it's not a good solution, and the one with
>>>>    CURRENT_LIST_DIR is
>>>>     > definitely better and already implemented.
>>>>     > And I am still convinced that I am right here, see my other mails.
>>>>
>>>>    So I would suggest to merge the CURRENT_LIST_DIR branch for 2.8.3,
>>>>    and as soon
>>>>    as 2.8.3 is released, remove the full paths again and enable the new
>>>>    CMP0017
>>>>    instead (prefer CMAKE_ROOT when include()d from CMAKE_ROOT) and then
>>>>    see what
>>>>    happens during the whole 2.8.4 cycle.
>>>>
>>>>    I think this (CMP0017) is necessary, because otherwise we can only
>>>> hope
>>>>    nothing breaks with future releases (independent from FPHSA).
>>>>
>>>>    Alex
>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>    cmake-developers mailing list
>>>>    cmake-developers at cmake.org <mailto:cmake-developers at cmake.org>
>>>>    http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm ok with this since Alex feels so strongly about it, and the code
>>>> change is restricted to using CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR only when including
>>>> FPHSA.cmake... (i.e. -- it should not affect including *other* files
>>>> from inside of modules that are presently overridden... which was my
>>>> concern -- that we'd break some *other* scenario -- since that's not
>>>> true, I retract my objection.)
>>>>
>>>> To review the change yourself:
>>>>   git fetch stage
>>>>   gitk remotes/stage/AddCMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR
>>>>
>>>> Look at the top 3 commits. Looks pretty safe. I'd say we should merge it
>>>> to 'next' and then after a night on the dashboards, merge it to 'master'
>>>> and do an rc3 release based on that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, lets try this one.  Lets move it to next.
>>>
>>> -Bill
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cmake-developers mailing list
>>> cmake-developers at cmake.org
>>> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
>>
>>
>> I'm trying to merge this, and getting conflicts when merging to 'next'
>> because of changes in cmMakefile.cxx like this:
>>
>>   this->AddDefinition("CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_FILE", filenametoread);
>>
>> <<<<<<< HEAD
>>
>>   this->MarkVariableAsUsed("CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_FILE");
>>
>> =======
>>
>>   this->AddDefinition("CMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR",
>>
>>
>> cmSystemTools::GetFilenamePath(filenametoread).c_str());
>>
>> >>>>>>> AddCMAKE_CURRENT_LIST_DIR
>>
>> What's the best way to resolve this conflict? Should I delete the
>> MarkVariableAsUsed lines because they're part of the dev/strict-mode branch
>> which is *not* going into 2.8.3?
>>
>> If I leave the MarkVariableAsUsed call in there, does if affect how the
>> commit will merge to 'master'...?
>>
>> Arg.
>
> Never mind.
> I think I resolved this "correctly for next" (including *both* features) and
> pushed it just now. The conflict should not occur when merging to master, so
> there should be nothing to resolve when I merge to master, and the
> additional lines I added as conflict resolution should not end up in master.
> (I'm going to verify that locally right now... :-)
> Thanks,
> David
>
Just to confirm that the current next fixes the issues I observed with
CMake failing to configure Avogadro. I think your merge should be fine
for master for the reason you state.

Marcus