[cmake-developers] Distinguishing MSYS2 (was: FindPythonLibs repaired for MINGW -vs- WIN32 version confusion)

[Greg Jung]

>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com> wrote:
> > On 08/07/2015 05:25 AM, Ray Donnelly wrote:
> >> CMake needs to be able to identify MSYS2 distinctly from both MINGW and
> MSYS
> >> first.  Would a patch making that distinction be acceptable to CMake?
> > Yes, I think that makes sense since the MSYS2 environment is distinct
>
> from Windows, MinGW, MSYS, and Cygwin.  What should CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME
> > be for MSYS2?
>
> Now that you mention it, I have the patch for CMakeDetermineSystem that
does gets
CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME from "uname -s" as for unix.


On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Ray Donnelly <mingw.android at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Brad King <brad.king at kitware.com> wrote:
> > On 08/07/2015 05:25 AM, Ray Donnelly wrote:
> >> CMake needs to be able to identify MSYS2 distinctly from both MINGW and
> MSYS
> >> first.  Would a patch making that distinction be acceptable to CMake?
> >
> > Yes, I think that makes sense since the MSYS2 environment is distinct
> > from Windows, MinGW, MSYS, and Cygwin.  What should CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME
> > be for MSYS2?
>
> Off the cuff, MSYS2 sounds reasonable, but I think we need to
> carefully think about this .. We have CMake packages built with
> MinGW-w64 and also CMake packages built with msys2 GCC (that are used
> for only a few of our packages). Do they need to be separately
> identifiable? I also wonder whether the msys2 CMake could be done away
> with if we used some functions to convert paths between shell-system
> and make-system .. I'll ask the MSYS2 developers who added the msys2
> CMake package about this.
>
> Finally, there's the consideration as to whether "MSYS2" implies you
> are using just the minimum amount of the MSYS2 shell or whether you've
> gone all-in with MSYS2 (so are happy to be using our Python's which
> are not found in the registry and have a Unix file layout prefixed in
> /mingw32 or /mingw64).
>
> I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this!
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Brad
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/attachments/20150807/2eae9126/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-CMakeDetermineSystem-distinguishes-MSYS-MINGW32-for-.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3843 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/attachments/20150807/2eae9126/attachment-0001.obj>