Clean up install config files and ensure find_dependency is called as appropriate

[jamiesnape]

Closes #449. FYI @traversaro.

---

This change is 

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

Could you add a note in the CHANGELOG.md file?

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @traversaro)

[jamiesnape]

It's a bug fix to 0.6.0. You will want to apply this to 0.6.1 ASAP otherwise Ubuntu packages are going to be semi-broken for two years.

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @traversaro)

[traversaro]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

---

fcl-config.cmake.in, line 10 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, jamiesnape (Jamie Snape) wrote…

Partly tradition, but also makes for a clearer error message if the path is accidentally cleaned IMO.

Ok!

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

Then let's go ahead and put it in a 0.6.1 section and we'll release it.

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[jamiesnape]

You should probably cherry-pick #450 as well?

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

@sherm1 you want to put eyes on this as well?

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[sherm1]

with a couple of questions:

• is there any way to test any of this? There are a lot of conditionals for which it would be reassuring to know we had gone through those paths.
• does there need to be some new documentation for the new features? For example, this introduces components "Development" and "Runtime". Does that need to be discussed in the README, or is this so standard that everyone will know what it does?
• This is some very nice ninja-level CMake code! Thanks, @jamiesnape.

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[jamiesnape]

• is there any way to test any of this? There are a lot of conditionals for which it would be reassuring to know we had gone through those paths.

Yes, if I refactor the test infrastructure (something I want to do, but not really something to add to this PR).

• does there need to be some new documentation for the new features? For example, this introduces components "Development" and "Runtime". Does that need to be discussed in the README, or is this so standard that everyone will know what it does?

Yes, it is standard.

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

Sounds like we should merge and tag release 0.6.1.

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[jamiesnape]

Yes, though we need to create a release branch (fcl-0.6) from a13c681, cherry pick #450, merge this into the release branch, tag that 0.6.1, and merge the release branch into master.

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

To be honest, I didn't follow that. My mind has a simpler model. We've tagged 0.6 several commits ago. We've added a few commits since then. Why not all of that becoming 0.6.1?

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[jamiesnape]

So the first response to that would be why was the previous release tagged 0.6.0? What do x = 0, y = 6, and z = 0 mean?

[jamiesnape]

(don't squash the two commits)

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r3.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[SeanCurtis-TRI]

Given the nature of the changes of the untested commit, I'm going to go ahead and merge.

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved