[CMake] vcproj2cmake.rb script: announcing new version / hosting questions

[Andreas Mohr]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:54:58AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote:
> On 6/14/2010 8:31 AM, Mike Jackson wrote:
>> Put the scripts in the cmake wiki and put it into the public domain.
>> Easiest for all.
>>
>
> To be compatible with CMake, I would say a BSD license would be the  
> best.  gitorious might be a good starting place.  We tried the converter  
> here, and it created some odd CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE stuff in the CMake files,  
> that looked like it would not work with the IDE generators.  
> CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE is NOT used for IDE project files.

Ah, right.
That would perhaps need a solution like the (in)famous
if(NOT CMAKE_CONFIGURATION_TYPES AND NOT CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE)
which I've been using at several other places but didn't think of
correcting when working on this area of the original script.
(to be fair, I haven't attempted a full-circle conversion to .vcproj on
Windows yet)

Thinking more about it, I'm not quite sure how to reach 100%
preservation of original .vcproj content this way (when doing a
full-circle conversion, that is).
After all in an original .vcproj file there are full configurations for
Debug, Release etc. (which the user then selects in the IDE).
Thus the converted CMakeLists.txt would _somehow_ have to contain the
same entire content, like it now does with our - quite obviously insufficient -
CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE branching.

Frankly the entire distinction between CMAKE_CONFIGURATION_TYPES
and CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE remains one of the more confusing things,
as can be witnessed in several confused postings about this topic.
(but I'm afraid that's just the way it is - there's nothing to be
improved about these mechanisms since they're likely just doing what they
should)

Anyway, I'll get that issue resolved soon - need to do some .vcproj
conversion testing anyway.


BSD license due to CMake using BSD license is a good argument,
not sure yet whether we'll buy it though ;)

Note to grandparent poster: putting into Wiki seems a bit weak
from a version control POV, I'm feeling more confident with a "real"
project page.

Thanks,

Andreas Mohr