Start to Refactor Summary Output

[ChristianTackeGSI]

Refactor the summary output into some functions.
This really only moves the functionality over into functions.

There is one commit with some slight improvments.

Making these things more generic/etc is left for another PR.

---

Checklist:

• Rebased against dev branch
• My name is in the resp. CONTRIBUTORS/AUTHORS file
• Followed the seven rules of great commit messages

[dennisklein]

Looks fine to me, pls remove the heading. The other two remarks are optional, we can delay them to later.

[ChristianTackeGSI]

Also added CXX standard checking:
Check that a given CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD maches up with the one from ROOT.

[dennisklein]

Hmm, looking at the added lines again and thinking about the added value, I am not sure, if I like it. Main goal was to put the typical info which is relevant for the user and in a way that it is easy to learn what are the options one would most likely change from time to time. A secondary goal was to put information which is useful in logs and not shown by CMake by default or not in a compact way easy for the eye.

We are now adding 7 questionable lines regarding the goals from above:

• PROJECT NAME will basically never change and is of no importance in the summary at all. For logging just the directory itself and such already make clear which project it is. IMHO, remove it or see the example with FairMQ later.
• VERSION is somewhat interesting, definitely for logging, also see FairMQ example later.
• INSTALL PREFIX is absolutely fine, probably the most changed option.
• the top-level install tree dirs are questionable IMHO. What do you think about not show them if they are the default ones, and only show the ones that were changed (for logging)?

This shows how one could save a lot of space for project name and version:

Looking at version now, it shows 18.6.0 (18.4.1-94-g8711c788a) - I realize both are not of any use (partially because of the way I managed the branches). But here we are neither at version 18.6.0, nor are we at 18.4.1-94-g8711c788a (technically yes, but not for the average viewer). So, this needs more logic now. I will have a look into this.

[ChristianTackeGSI]

Okay, added a lot of STATUS -> VERBOSE in there.
So now you need to do

$ cmake … --log-level=VERBOSE

to see this stuff.

Maybe that's better now?

I am currently highly considering to add such a flag in our spack recipe "If the user looks at the logs, they want logs".

[dennisklein]

Okay, added a lot of STATUS -> VERBOSE in there.
So now you need to do

$ cmake … --log-level=VERBOSE
to see this stuff.

Maybe that's better now?

Yes, awesome.

I am currently highly considering to add such a flag in our spack recipe

Agreed. It is a good idea.