[cmake-developers] Review request: qt4-target-depends

Clinton Stimpson clinton at elemtech.com
Mon Dec 31 14:01:18 EST 2012


On Monday, December 31, 2012 07:09:23 PM Stephen Kelly wrote:
> clinton at elemtech.com wrote:
> > I'm already aware of the distinction.
> 
> Great. That wasn't clear from your email talking about all dependencies of
> QtDeclarative instead of just the public ones.
> 
> > Granted, UseQt4.cmake doesn't know
> > if imported targets are being used or not, and probably cannot be reduced
> > to the public dependencies.
> 
> Yes, I think the 'module dependencies' from the point of view of cmake
> determining that the library exists and has been found on the system is
> different to the 'public link dependencies'.
> 
> > But, aren't you still missing the private dependencies so that the
> > -rpath-link flag (for Linux/GNU) can be added to specify the location of
> > the private dependencies?
> 
> That is not in the intended scope of my change. My change is about the
> public link dependencies.
> 
> If you know how to specify the private dependencies correctly, we can have
> that patch depend on my patch. I'm focussing on the public link
> dependencies.
> 
> > Maybe we can always use imported targets in FindQt4.cmake, then end up
> > with one place to specify public & private dependencies.
> 
> The IMPORTED targets are available in UseQt4.cmake. The public dependencies
> (and private dependencies, if you populate them there in some way) can be
> read from the IMPORTED targets in UseQt4.cmake.
> 
> That's also out of the scope of my patch though. I'm trying to get a patch
> that is self-contained and useful in. I'm not trying to fix all possible
> issues with FindQt4 at once. There are more other and useful things to do,
> but this is the largest issue and the one with the biggest gain.
> 
> Do you think my patch is not self-contained and useful enough as it is to go
> in?
> 

For some reason I thought you needed the private ones too because a custom 
built Qt could be without rpaths.  But the ones I checked seem to be fine.
So, +1 for the patch.

-- 
Clinton Stimpson
Elemental Technologies, Inc
Computational Simulation Software, LLC
www.csimsoft.com



More information about the cmake-developers mailing list