[CMake] Why is XXX_INCLUDE_DIRS plural and should it be deep?

[esatel]

Hi all,
I am trying to adapt an existing FindNetCDF.cmake file to work with NetCDF
4.2. I have read the Modules/Readme.txt but I am still a little unclear to
the best approach in my case.

In 4.2 the Fortran bindings and C bindings are not necessarily installed in
the same place. One motive for NetCDF_INCLUDE_DIRS to be plural is that
there might be a NetCDF_C_INCLUDE_DIR and a NetCDF_Fortran_INCLUDE_DIR that
together form NetCDF_INCLUDE_DIRS.

There is a second motive that I am less clear on. The FindNetCDF.cmake files
I have seen handle the HDF5 dependency differently:
1. One sets a variable NETCDF_HAS_HDF5 by querying a config executable but
does nothing else.
2. The other sets a similar variable but then does find_package on HDF5 and
loads the dependencies into NetCDF_INCLUDE_DIRS and NetCDF_LIBRARIES.

This design (2) cascades. FindHDF5.cmake represents a similar decision about
whether to find_package its dependencies like the zlib compression library.
I believe the one in the cmake distro doesn't do that. 

What is the best practice here? To handle dual locations for the library at
hand or to accumulate or both? The first seems unavoidable ... the second
seems to be an unevenly applied standard.

Thanks
Eli



--
View this message in context: http://cmake.3232098.n2.nabble.com/Why-is-XXX-INCLUDE-DIRS-plural-and-should-it-be-deep-tp7582623.html
Sent from the CMake mailing list archive at Nabble.com.