-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/01/2013 01:53 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: >> So far we chose the "have it in cmake/ecm" route. If we had what Mirko = >> > refers=20 >> > to, then that'd open the door to another solution. > And it would open the first door towards alienating linux distributions. > > Of course, we could say "and so what?". But that is our current primary > way of getting our stuff to our users - so we shouldn't put obstacles in > their way. > > Maven, ruby and stuff is all communities where there seem to be a strong > tension with the linux distributions over issues like this. Let's not > try to embrace that.
Sune, with what I have suggested, there would be no difference for distributions regarding ECM. Now, they have to get ECM installed and tell CMake where to find it. Then, they will have to get the ECM repo installed, and tell CMake where to find it. For the offline case, I do not see a big difference. I don't want to downplay the concerns, but I think the problem is manageable. Cheers, Mirko. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlJzpRMACgkQYSSaITCTnKXsZACfTa+FNQBFCwAW33kIXtcWcIzY BFcAoLDFhevjYbESagkg4J5V+uuX3+YQ =yVwn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
