On Tuesday 28 April 2009 23:10:28 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Tuesday 28 April 2009, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > > On Tuesday 28 April 2009 20:22:33 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > On Tuesday 28 April 2009, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > > > > Currently we have a separate test for Nepomuk in kdebase and other > > > > places. I think that should be moved into the standard kde finding > > > > cmake file. Can someone help with that? > > > > > > > > I already commited a small change but it mostly removes the > > > > non-existing kmetadata lib > > > > > > Did it exist at some point in time or was it always empty ? > > > > it existed for a brief period before 4.0. > > > > > > and renames knepomuk to nepomuk. > > > > > > Oh. > > > The library is also named "nepomuk" instead of "knepomuk". Was there > > > a "knepomuk" library at some point ? > > > > same as with kmetadata. renamed before 4.0 > > > > > Does that mean that KDE4_KNEPOMUK_LIBS was actually always empty ? > > > > yes. > > I guess then it should be ok.
So... can you help me here a bit? Actually Nepomuk has Soprano as dependency. If that is not there it will not be compiled. Can that check be put into FindKDE? > ... > > > > Also, we have since a few weeks a generally agreed commit policy for > > > kdelibs/cmake/modules/: > > > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/CMake_Commit_Policy > > > > > > I guess I should add a point on removing and renaming stuff (actually > > > this is part of source compatibility). > > > > sorry if I broke a policy. I did it since both knepomuk and kmetadata > > never existed in a final kde release. > > If they didn't exist you didn't break it :-) > Removing variables which were always empty is ok (since they will still be > empty when used). > > Alex _______________________________________________ Kde-buildsystem mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
