Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Tuesday 18 December 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> > yes, but forgot to answer. >> > No strong reason here. The options containing "HAVE" are based on >> > whether that thing existed on the system where the library was built. >> > This one is independent on whether udisk2 existed on that system, so I >> > thought "USE" might be better. >> > I might also use "USE" for all those options... >> >> Ah, actually I misread the comment. I thought the udisks2 one was about >> using the 'system' udisks2. > > Sorry, what do you mean exactly with the "system udisks2" ?
That was a brain-fart. I was thinking along the lines of how Qt can be built with a system zlib or a bundled one. We can ignore this suthread I think. > >> We've used HAVE for variables like this before, right? Is that the common >> way? > > I think the "HAVE" is typically for stuff which exists or not. > The cmake option is called "WITH_SOLID_UDISKS2", it can be set by the > user, independent whether udisk2 is used on the current system or not. So > HAVE sounds slightly wrong to me. Except if interpreted as "the installed > solid has support for udisk2". That's how I interpret it. I'd also rename the option from WITH_SOLID_UDISKS2 to SOLID_USE_UDISKS2 or so, but we don't need to bikeshed that. Thanks, Steve. _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
