On Monday 11 November 2013, Ben Cooksley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:48 PM, David Faure <fa...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Monday 11 November 2013 01:06:33 Michael Pyne wrote: > > > On Sun, November 10, 2013 20:11:07 David Faure wrote: > > > > On Sunday 10 November 2013 13:44:09 Michael Pyne wrote: > > > > > I would highly recommend doing something similar to what was done > > > > > for strigi when it was split into 5 git modules. > > > > > > > > I think you misunderstood the issue? > > > > > > > > A super-repo might help automating "building all of KF5", but it > > > > doesn't > > > > > > solve the issue of "defining the install dirs and compiler settings > > > > in > > > > the > > > > > > separate karchive tarball". > > > > > > > > The stuff in the super-repo won't be in the karchive tarball, so it's > > > > unrelated to the discussion in this thread, unless I'm missing > > > > something. > > > > > I believe the idea is that the karchive tarball would have an implicit > > > dependency on a "KF5 umbrella" supermodule, no? > > > > No, not at all. > > > > The KF5 umbrella thing is just a generic cmake file that allows to write > > find_package(KF5 COMPONENTS KArchive KIO etc.) > > instead of 10 different find_package calls. > > KArchive doesn't need this at all. > > (Higher-tier frameworks might need it, but AFAICS they can also do > > without it). > > > > The thing that we're considering a git submodule for, is these 3 files: > > KDECMakeSettings.cmake KDECompilerSettings.cmake KDEInstallDirs.cmake > > Isn't a separate Git repository for three files just a touch overkill? It > is quite a lot of overhead.
Did you have a look at the current tier1/kf5umbrella/ ? This is two files now, it would be 5 files then. Yes, still not much. > What harm are these three files doing to ECM? It keeps it from being releasable for two years now. Alex _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
