Re: [KDE/Mac] [OS X] adding a link module to all KF5 targets

On Thursday October 15 2015 09:14:42 Christoph Cullmann wrote: >> KDE and its Frameworks and KF5 successors EMBRACE file-sharing between >> applications, utilities and libraries. >Actually, I here already disagree. Hmmm? >At least some KDE application developers like me or the Krita team want

Re: Policy for Dependencies

On 14 October 2015 at 20:55, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Martin Klapetek wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Christoph Cullmann >> wrote: >> >> Given that lot opposition was here for a 5 lines change which does >> break

Re: Review Request 125332: Use the more advanced version of uriencode.cmake from kdoctools which supports Windows.

> On Oct. 8, 2015, 2:59 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > +1 > > Hannah von Reth wrote: > Ship it? See my comment below: "Is FindPerlModules really not needed?" It is missing from the last version of the patch, is it intended? - Luigi

Re: [KDE/Mac] [OS X] adding a link module to all KF5 targets

Hi, I think our two views of this topic are too contrary to come to some consense, therefore I just want to answer your technical questions and leave the rest as is. Others that care about getting their applications to Mac can still tell their opinion, this is as said anyways only mine,

Re: Review Request 125332: Use the more advanced version of uriencode.cmake from kdoctools which supports Windows.

> On Okt. 8, 2015, 12:59 nachm., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > +1 Ship it? - Hannah --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125332/#review86501

Re: [KDE/Mac] [OS X] adding a link module to all KF5 targets

Hi, > Hi Christoph, René and Samuel, > > First of all, gentlemen, let's not argue and get hot under the collar. The > only > way we are going to get anywhere is by working together, helping each other > and exchanging information. Sure, please, nobody should feel insulted, I just stated my

Re: Review Request 125647: Fix KArchiveTest::testTarCopyTo on NTFS

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125647/ --- (Updated oct. 15, 2015, 3:08 après-midi) Review request for KDE

Re: Review Request 125332: Use the more advanced version of uriencode.cmake from kdoctools which supports Windows.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125332/ --- (Updated Okt. 15, 2015, 2:44 nachm.) Review request for KDE Frameworks.

Review Request 125647: Fix KArchiveTest::testTarCopyTo on NTFS

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125647/ --- Review request for KDE Frameworks. Repository: karchive Description

Re: Review Request 125647: Fix KArchiveTest::testTarCopyTo on NTFS

> On oct. 15, 2015, 2:36 après-midi, Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > Maybe such code should go in QFileInfo::permissions, no? Well, as stated in the documentation "On NTFS file systems, ownership and permissions checking is disabled by default for performance reasons", so I guess it won't

Re: Review Request 125332: Use the more advanced version of uriencode.cmake from kdoctools which supports Windows.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125332/#review86896 --- Ship it! Inviala! - Luigi Toscano On Ott. 15, 2015, 4:44

Re: Review Request 125647: Fix KArchiveTest::testTarCopyTo on NTFS

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125647/#review86890 --- Ship it! Since this is in a test, I don't think speed