On 19 February 2013 23:11, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <kosse...@kde.org> wrote: > Am Dienstag, 19. Februar 2013, 22:35:19 schrieb Jaroslaw Staniek: >> On 19 February 2013 22:19, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <kosse...@kde.org> > wrote: >> > Am Dienstag, 19. Februar 2013, 22:07:46 schrieb Inge Wallin: >> >> Well... not really. Since Plasma Active is a viewer only only the import >> >> filters make sense. ...which suggests another build option: VIEWER. >> > >> > But isn't the plan to make it also an editor in the end? If not, where is >> > the difference to OkularActive or whatever other reader there is for >> > PlasmaActive? >> > >> > Sure, for now ACTIVE_ONLY would limit to import filters, given the needs. >> >> Our selling point is modularity, yet the deployment could be improved >> in some aspects. It would be great to get there also by providing >> (yes) kernel-like detailed build options, something not present in >> competing projects. >> Qt Project is also quite modular if we need examples. > > Agreed. A perfect solution would allow the builder to define precisely which > plugins/filters/modules/apps are to build (and then warn about all which > cannot due to missings deps), and offer some prepared typical-pattern schemas > for convenience. > > Perhaps a topic for the sprint?
Yes. One thing to think about: BUILD_* variables generated by cmake are based on the directory name what leads to often not self-explanatory names. BUILD_words has clear meaning but BUILD_variables is not if there are more than one 'variables' directory in the whole calligra. This comes from the way how macro_optional_add_subdirectory() behaves and could be improved by adding a way to put extra context information. After that we be would even able to invent some friendly configurator. > For now I just want a pragmatic solution for the current known usecases :) > >> Enabling VIEWER profile is one of our advantages. Another one apart >> form single-app-only profiles is: a build without pigment (they are >> unusable for most Kexi users). >> >> For me TINY is somewhat close to what ultimately be called MINIMAL and >> as such it makes sense as generic template for people playing with >> their own GUIs. > > So MINIMAL in functionality of cores/engines? (current TINY also limited to > classic MSOFFICE-defined app set, Sheets,Stage&Words) Works for me! -- regards / pozdrawiam, Jaroslaw Staniek Kexi & Calligra & KDE | http://calligra.org/kexi | http://kde.org Qt Certified Specialist | http://qt-project.org http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
