On Monday 08 February 2010, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > On Monday 08 of February 2010 12:42:02 Mike Arthur wrote: > > On 6 Feb 2010, at 14:41, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > > How about moving all shared .cmake files to either separate package (or > > > maybe with modules fetched from Internet, sth like knewstuff or PEAR or > > > just SVN) - as current kdelibs cmake policies are too strict, besides > > > rebuilding kdelibs just to get newer cmake files seems silly. That > > > would benefit both cases imho. > > > > How are the current KDELibs CMake policies "too strict"? What problems > > are these causing? > > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/CMake_and_Source_Compatibility (general) > http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/CMake_Commit_Policy (kdelibs/cmake) > > KDElibs CMake policies cause no problems - they solve them. It's just this > strictness currently may seem to discourage developers from getting their > .cmake files in shape and pushing them to kdelibs instead of bundling > within modules (like kdenetwork etc).
If we would have another package just consisting of cmake files, I think the same rules would have to apply to it, and I think this may have the same effect on the developers. Installing cmake files comes with a cost, so not sharing them if they are used only in some very rare cases also has advantages. Maybe for each current kdefoo/ module there should also be a kdefoo-libs/ module, which would contain the libs from that module, so that the apps would have less in-module dependencies. And it could also contain the cmake files. But I still would recommend not to install those file. Alex _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
