Re: cmake again

Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > Will do! At the same time, I guess the tar will be different since we don???t > need autotools related files but cmake ones for that tar build. the story will be unfortuntely more complicated. we don't release bunch of files because the are only development related,

Re: cmake again

Benjamin Piwowarski schreef op 7-5-2014 10:50: On 5 May 2014 at 18:59:45 , Pavel Sanda (sa...@lyx.org) wrote: Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > I did not get neither - but what are the files that are shipped in the > tarball but not in git? Just grab tarball from ftp and check yourself ;) P Will do

Re: cmake again

Benjamin Piwowarski schreef op 7-5-2014 10:50: On 5 May 2014 at 18:59:45 , Pavel Sanda (sa...@lyx.org ) wrote: Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > I did not get neither - but what are the files that are shipped in the tarball but not in git? Just grab tarball from ftp and c

Re: cmake again

Will do! At the same time, I guess the tar will be different since we don’t need autotools related files but cmake ones for that tar build. benjamin On 5 May 2014 at 18:59:45 , Pavel Sanda (sa...@lyx.org) wrote: Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > I did not get neither - but what are the files that

Re: cmake again

Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > I did not get neither - but what are the files that are shipped in the > tarball but not in git? Just grab tarball from ftp and check yourself ;) P

Re: cmake again

Am Samstag, 3. Mai 2014 um 17:27:37, schrieb Benjamin Piwowarski > On 30 Apr 2014 at 19:23:03 , Pavel Sanda (sa...@lyx.org) wrote: > Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > We ship only subset of files stored in git, so tar itself won't help. Using target 'git-archive', e.g. # make git-arc

Re: cmake again

On 30 Apr 2014 at 19:23:03 , Pavel Sanda (sa...@lyx.org) wrote: Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:  > > We ship only subset of files stored in git, so tar itself won't help.  > >  > I guess that what is installed by cmake will be closer to the tar files we  > are used to.  I do not follow what you mean

Re: cmake again

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > We ship only subset of files stored in git, so tar itself won't help. > > > I guess that what is installed by cmake will be closer to the tar files we > are used to. I do not follow what you mean. > > If there is no configure, cmake scripts already know how to ha

Re: cmake again

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > > I did not try, but my first answer would be that there is no need to > produce a specific tarball with cmake since there is no more ./configure > and everything is handled through cmake. So the tar ball can be pr

Re: cmake again

Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > I did not try, but my first answer would be that there is no need to produce > a specific tarball with cmake since there is no more ./configure and > everything is handled through cmake. So the tar ball can be produced directly > with tar.  We ship only subset of fi

Re: cmake again

I did not try, but my first answer would be that there is no need to produce a specific tarball with cmake since there is no more ./configure and everything is handled through cmake. So the tar ball can be produced directly with tar.  This will surely break the packaging process for distribution

Re: cmake again

Benjamin Piwowarski wrote: > what is missing in the current cmake system. Is the tarball created by cmake (reasonably) identical to tarball created by autotools? Pavel