On Wednesday 30 December 2009 00:43:31 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 29-12-2009 18:30, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
I get your point (bloat), but being vague and sarcastic is not the way to
go about it. The best is to provide numbers to back it up and show the
real costs of running two
Mike, thank you for adding kde-pim to the receipients. Doesn't really make
much sense to discuss things without informing some of the stakeholders.
On Tuesday, 2009-12-29, Mike Arthur wrote:
On 29 Dec 2009, at 18:13, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
One little problem remains - in case no one noticed
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 14:31, Sebastian Kügler se...@kde.org wrote:
I'm starting to get really amazed how people are willing to condemn the use
of
databases without even coming up with a single performance measurement
backing up the
claims of bloat. And then people go wild based on wrong
On Wednesday, 2009-12-30, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 29-12-2009 23:09, Mike Arthur wrote:
On 29 Dec 2009, at 23:43, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
As Maciej hinted, you're opening the door for another group of KDE devs
later call for precedent to add hard deps on sqlite,
On Wednesday 30 December 2009, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 30-12-2009 11:45, Kevin Krammer wrote:
On Wednesday, 2009-12-30, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 29-12-2009 23:09, Mike Arthur wrote:
On 29 Dec 2009, at 23:43, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
As Maciej hinted,
On Wednesday 30 December 2009 17:53:14 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 30-12-2009 11:45, Kevin Krammer wrote:
On Wednesday, 2009-12-30, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
On 29-12-2009 23:09, Mike Arthur wrote:
On 29 Dec 2009, at 23:43, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
As Maciej
On Sunday 27 December 2009 14:34:23 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
While keeping if (NEPOMUK_FOUND) and alike CMake code is considerable
maintenance cost - this cost has already been born so there's nothing else
to do for 4.4 (and dropping this code to simplify CMake files relying on
the fact
On Tuesday 29 of December 2009 13:50:12 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
On Sunday 27 December 2009 14:34:23 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
While keeping if (NEPOMUK_FOUND) and alike CMake code is considerable
maintenance cost - this cost has already been born so there's nothing
else
to do for 4.4
On 29 Dec 2009, at 18:13, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
One little problem remains - in case no one noticed - *KDE* *SC* is now (as
of
4.4) *officially* *the* *first* *Desktop* *Environment* *in* *the* *history*
*that* *requires* *two* *full*-*blown* *relational* *database* *servers*
Hey,
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 19:13:08 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Tuesday 29 of December 2009 13:50:12 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
On Sunday 27 December 2009 14:34:23 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
While keeping if (NEPOMUK_FOUND) and alike CMake code is considerable
maintenance cost - this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29-12-2009 18:30, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
Hey,
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 19:13:08 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Tuesday 29 of December 2009 13:50:12 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
On Sunday 27 December 2009 14:34:23 Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
While
On 29 Dec 2009, at 23:43, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
If common sense won't cut it, do I need to start a vote, forum thread
or something else asking KDE users (I can do it for Gentoo alone) if
they are worried/upset about this? Should I ask how many former KDE
users stopped using it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 29-12-2009 23:09, Mike Arthur wrote:
On 29 Dec 2009, at 23:43, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
If common sense won't cut it, do I need to start a vote, forum thread
or something else asking KDE users (I can do it for Gentoo alone) if
they
On Sunday 27 of December 2009 19:06:18 Allen Winter wrote:
From a kdepim point-of-view, Nepomuk must be a hard dependency as
Kontact will have big problems without it.
So either Nepomuk is a hard dependency for kdelibs or for kdepim.
Might as well keep it a hard dependency for kdelibs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 27 December 2009 13:06:18 Allen Winter wrote:
On Sunday 27 December 2009 8:34:23 am Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Actually one of those people screaming would be me :)
From my perspective it's much more convenient to have Nepomuk libs
(and
On 27.12.09 13:06:18, Allen Winter wrote:
On Sunday 27 December 2009 8:34:23 am Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Tuesday 22 of December 2009 21:32:29 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Now, in kdelibs there's a little inconsistency with Nepomuk related
CMake options logic:
- Soprano is always
On Tuesday 22 of December 2009 21:32:29 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Now, in kdelibs there's a little inconsistency with Nepomuk related
CMake options logic:
- Soprano is always required
- SDO is optional
- Nepomuk libs are built when both Soprano (with all needed backends
and parsers)
On Sunday 27 December 2009 8:34:23 am Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
On Tuesday 22 of December 2009 21:32:29 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
Now, in kdelibs there's a little inconsistency with Nepomuk related
CMake options logic:
- Soprano is always required
- SDO is optional
- Nepomuk libs
Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Proposals (patch):
- find_library(Soprano) - macro_optional_find_library(Soprano)
keeping Soprano backend checks (so only Soprano with all needed
backends is accepted)
fine by me.
- other minor changes in FindNepomuk.cmake:
* set url in macro_log_feature of Soprano
Hi,
On Tuesday 22 December 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
Hi
Looking at current state of requirements regarding Nepomuk libs in KDE
SC (trunk), apart from kdebase/runtime/nepomuk obviously, only
kdepim/akonadiconsole seems to have hard dependency on Nepomuk
libraries. Dependency which cannot
- find_library(Soprano) - macro_optional_find_library(Soprano)
errata: s/find_libary/find_package/g - you get the drill
___
Kde-buildsystem mailing list
Kde-buildsystem@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
21 matches
Mail list logo
