Re: CI system maintainability

Hi, On 2019 M03 28, Thu 16:04:01 CET Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:21, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thursday, 28 March 2019 14:33:59 CET laurent Montel wrote: > > > I am against to force mandatory review, as it will create a lot of lose > > > > of > >

D9394: Show "Search wrapped" message in center of view for better visibility

neundorf accepted this revision. neundorf added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Definitely an improvement :-) REPOSITORY R39 KTextEditor BRANCH SearchMessages (branched from master) REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D9394 To: dhaumann, neundorf,

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 13:08:46 Dominik Haumann wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > I think that is more or less what we had in the past with the "kdewin" > > installer, that is like the cygwin installer pulling in all stuff you >

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 22:48:52 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 22:12:00 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > > > ... > > > >> And the big benefit: One can install my alpha crashy something quality > >> Kate > >> > >> bundle with its Qt something version

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 22:12:00 Christoph Cullmann wrote: ... > And the big benefit: One can install my alpha crashy something quality Kate > bundle with its Qt something version and some imaginary Krita bundle that > is installed in parallel will NOT be borked! are you more or less

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 20:23:00 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > Hi, > > > Christoph. > > > > I have had similar goals for a while, but haven't reached the point > > that I was having much success yet in that regard. One thing to keep > > in mind when developing installers, Qt Installer

Re: Versioning of Frameworks

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 15:39:02 David Faure wrote: On Sunday 10 May 2015 12:36:53 Christian Mollekopf wrote: * I'd consider Qt to be a lower level library. Qt mostly provides fundamentals just like libc or the STL, and it's therefore okay for me to just work with what I have available.

Re: Versioning of Frameworks

On Friday, May 08, 2015 10:32:22 Christian Mollekopf wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2015, at 05:38 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote: ... The versioning would be a complete mess: each framework having a different version number, some doing bug fix releases, some don't. ...that complete mess is just actual

Re: Versioning of Frameworks

On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:33:03 Christian Mollekopf wrote: Hey David, Sorry for the late response. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015, at 08:34 PM, David Faure wrote: On Tuesday 28 April 2015 12:17:00 Christian Mollekopf wrote: Our dependency tree is now indeed reduced, but if we want to update a

Re: AndroidToolchain.cmake in ECM

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 22:23:09 Albert Astals Cid wrote: El Dijous, 3 de juliol de 2014, a les 02:04:31, Aleix Pol va escriure: Hi, As you might have seen on my blog post [1], I've been working on Android support for kde. Part of this effort resulted in a cmake toolchain file we can

Re: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

On Thursday, May 08, 2014 22:08:06 David Faure wrote: [Taking k-c-d out, too much cross-posting] On Monday 05 May 2014 21:54:42 Alexander Neundorf wrote: If we have more than 50 libraries, do all of them need a full new release every month ? Not doing that leads to 1) a huge mess

Re: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

On Sunday, May 04, 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote: Kevin Ottens ha scritto: So, we had a team discussion here with Albert, Aleix, Alex, Alex, Aurélien, David, Rohan and myself. We juggled with several options, trying to address the following constraints: * We don't have many

Re: Review Request 114904: Remove KDE4 magic from _SET_FANCY in KDEInstallDirs.cmake

where or who it was. - Alexander Neundorf On Jan. 7, 2014, 9:18 p.m., Alex Merry wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114904

Re: substitution for KDE4_ADD_APP_ICON cmake macro

On Sunday 29 December 2013, David Faure wrote: On Friday 20 December 2013 14:59:45 Michal Humpula wrote: Hi there, I was wondering if there is a recommended migration path from KDE4_ADD_APP_ICON cmake makro. This stuff is indeed missing on

Re: pkg-config files

On Thursday 26 December 2013, Alex Merry wrote: How much do we care about users of frameworks who don't use CMake? Do we want to provide pkg-config files? How easy is it to do so? (My personal answers would be: enough to put in a little effort, but not a huge one; yes, if it's easy; there

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

and the CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE CACHE property accordingly, i.e. both still list DebugFull, Profile and Coverage as available build types. - Alexander Neundorf On Nov. 11, 2013, 10:16 p.m., Sune Vuorela wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

into the cache, and afterwards the user should be able to change them as he wants. - Alexander Neundorf On Nov. 11, 2013, 10:16 p.m., Sune Vuorela wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 12:02 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: Maybe I've missed something, but I would like to have it explained somehow. Why is it bad to define such values? How will g++ calls compare? Nicolás Alvarez wrote: In normal CMake, -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug builds without

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Monday 11 November 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: On Sunday, November 3, 2013 20:51:57 Alexander Neundorf wrote: I wanted to release ECM as fast as possible, since this was one of the main points I got from the platform meeting in Randa in June 2011: people want to be able to use cmake

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

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

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello, Since there's been several times discussions about having a kind of Tier 0 for building our frameworks containing what is right now in ECM kde-modules directory, but the idea was never really on the table because of the extra dependency

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Monday 11 November 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: ... in my mind this allows: * an immediate release of ecm * allows KDE to back it rather than have ecm distanced from KDE * this gives ecm a needed “reference customer” * this gives KDE a first step into the “we’re a community

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello, Since there's been several times discussions about having a kind of Tier 0 for building our frameworks containing what is right now in ECM kde-modules directory, but the idea was never really on the table because of the extra dependency

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Tuesday 12 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Tuesday 12 November 2013 20:04:38 Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2013-11-11, Aaron J. Seigo ase...@kde.org wrote: would that work for everyone? I don't think it solves the actual hard point: Where should the final home for the stuff in

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: To build karchive itself, they would need cmake + tier0-kf5 + ECM Which is exactly what I want to avoid. You wrote To build software using karchive with cmake, they still need

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: To build karchive itself, they would need cmake + tier0-kf5 + ECM Which is exactly what I want to avoid. You wrote

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013 16:27:06 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: To build

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013 17:57:00 Kevin Ottens wrote: Now back to the submodules sha-1 update... The only thing I see to easily overcome that for our developers, is to have a hook, which would update the submodules for all the frameworks

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Saturday 02 November 2013, Luca Beltrame wrote: Rex Dieter wrote: I can vouche for fedora/redhat that the buildsystem does not have internet access. Likewise, the OBS for openSUSE does not have net access during building. as I said, it is trivial and IMO mandatory to have that

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2013-11-01, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: Anyway, attached is a quick experiment, which adds the 3 KDE*.cmake files= from=20 extra-cmake-modules/ to kf5umbrella/, by that turning it into tier0/, wit= h the=20

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Saturday 02 November 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: In case we decide to go this way (i.e. the my ideal view plus optional downloading), and we should hear Stephens opinion on that, My opinion: 1) The current situation with ECM and KF5 is just fine. do you

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 03 November 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: e.g. keeping code like always, unconditional, hardcoded searching for QtCore 'hardcoded' doesn't have any meaning in this context. The code you are talking about is neither 'always', nor 'unconditional'. come

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 03 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... To build software using an installed karchive, they don't need anything but a compiler. To build software using karchive with cmake, they still need only cmake. To build

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 03 November 2013, Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2013-11-03, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: This code unconditionally searches for QtCore (and sets a target property where I'm not sure how many people here can understand what's going on). It is hopefully a temporary hack

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Mirko Boehm wrote: On 11/01/2013 01:37 PM, Kevin Ottens wrote: if a package foo uses ecm (or that non existing tier0 cmake package) itself, this does not mean that another package which uses foo, also needs ecm (or that tier0 package) at buildtime.

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Mirko Boehm wrote: 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

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Treeve Jelbert wrote: On Friday 01 November 2013 15:46:30 Nicolás Alvarez wrote: ... Maven is a disgusting monstrosity used by the Java crowd where backwards compatibility rarely exists, and the approach to make things not break is to make packages depend on

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... If that option was enabled when installing kf5umbrella, kf5umbrella will load that embedded ECM when asked for ECM. In this quick hack attached here find_package(KF5Umbrella) unconditionally loads KDECMakeSettings.cmake. The version

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Michael Pyne wrote: On Fri, November 1, 2013 20:06:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote: Anyway, attached is a quick experiment, which adds the 3 KDE*.cmake files from extra-cmake-modules/ to kf5umbrella/, by that turning it into tier0/, with the optional ability

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Thursday 31 October 2013, David Faure wrote: On Wednesday 30 October 2013 21:19:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Wednesday 30 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, Soon I will be replacing code like find_package(KF5 REQUIRED CMake Compiler InstallDirs

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Thursday 31 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: find_package(KF5 ... COMPONENTS karchive solid kcompletion) call in their CMakeLists.txt and get the same results. And if this works for tier3 libs, why not just do the same in tier2 and also in tier1

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Wednesday 30 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, Soon I will be replacing code like find_package(KF5 REQUIRED CMake Compiler InstallDirs) with include(KDEInstallDirs) include(KDECMakeSettings) include(KDECompilerSettings) As I've said before, it makes no sense that

Re: Review Request 113483: Copy KDE4 macro to install all icons in the current source dir

On Tuesday 29 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Kevin Ottens wrote: Ship it! Looks fine to me and is aligned with prior discussions. Note that it is named ECM_foo, but it contains hardcoded KDE icon theme names. Good point. As it is, IMO for being ECM, it needs way more

Re: cyclic dependency kinit - kservice

On Friday 25 October 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Friday 25 October 2013 11:14:19 David Narvaez wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Kevin Ottens er...@kde.org wrote: On Monday 21 October 2013 17:01:44 Treeve Jelbert wrote: kinit needs kservice and installs KInitMacros.cmake which

Re: Review Request 113406: Add a macro to automatically generate forward headers

and in the cmake_parse_arguments() call. - Alexander Neundorf On Oct. 26, 2013, 9:35 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113406

Re: Review Request 113373: Enable C++11 support by default.

On Oct. 21, 2013, 8:06 p.m., Stephen Kelly wrote: As far as I know, only threadweaver and karchive will be released in December. The rest of the frameworks won't be released until summer. By summer, CMake 3.0.0 will most likely be out. Volker Krause wrote: while the CMake 3

Re: Review Request 113406: Add a macro to automatically generate forward headers

On Oct. 24, 2013, 1:54 p.m., Stephen Kelly wrote: modules/ECMGenerateHeaders.cmake, line 29 http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113406/diff/2/?file=205462#file205462line29 This variable shouldn't be needed at all. Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: Variable? Or argument? Why? Stephen

extra-cmake-modules: remove ECMPrintVariables.cmake

Hi, e-c-m has a macro ecm_print_variables() From the documentation: # Example: # ecm_print_variables(CMAKE_C_COMPILER # CMAKE_MAJOR_VERSION THIS_ONE_DOES_NOT_EXIST) # Gives: # -- CMAKE_C_COMPILER=/usr/bin/gcc ; CMAKE_MAJOR_VERSION=2 ; # THIS_ONE_DOES_NOT_EXIST=

Re: Config files naming policy

On Monday 21 October 2013, Ivan Čukić wrote: Hi all, Since we are now sharing the locations of our configs with non-kde software, we can potentially get collisions with those. I'm proposing changing the names of the config files to org.kde.something (or some other alternative). do you

Re: KF5 Update Meeting Minutes 2013-w42

On Tuesday 15 October 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello everyone, .. * steveire recommends _LIBRARIES variables from Config files and the template, Is there a verb missing in this sentence ? Alex ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list

Re: libnm-qt Qt5 port: -fPIC or fPIE needed?

On Wednesday 09 October 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi, While porting libnm-qt to Qt5, I'm running into the following problem when building the tests. I've not seen this error before, and I'd like advice how to fix it. [ 59%] Building CXX object

Re: update your cmake!

On Thursday 10 October 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi, In order to build KF5 and Plasma2 code, you have to update your cmake to 2.8.12. Otherwise, you'll get build errors. Doesn't it error out in cmake_minimum_required() ? If not, I'd suggest that somebody takes care of handling this

Re: Review Request 112932: Update superbuild to include all tiered libraries

on the Config.cmake files? Alexander Neundorf wrote: You mean after DEPENDS ? Because the superbuild CMakeLists.txt has no information otherwise which sub-builds depend on which other sub-builds, so this information must be there to make sure e.g. tier1 libs are built before

Re: more build problems around KIO

On Monday 07 October 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi, I'm still struggling to get kde-workspace (and kde-runtime) to build after Friday's changes. Following Kevin's change in plasma-framework, I've removed KIO from the KF5 imports. The problem is now: CMake Warning at

Re: kio-related build error in plasma-framework

On Saturday 05 October 2013, David Faure wrote: On Friday 04 October 2013 19:55:52 Sebastian Kügler wrote: On Friday, October 04, 2013 17:56:52 Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi, I'm getting a build error in a few places in plasma-framework, kio isn't found. I can't seem to figure out

Re: Frameworks Overview

On Friday 27 September 2013, Ben Cooksley wrote: ... Yep. At the moment there are no real contenders as such - which is why it has not yet been replaced. Phabricator is being monitored for progress on a blocking issue however. The primary issues are those of performance ( That's a pity.

Re: Review Request 112928: Template files for frameworks

of the find_package(KF5) syntax: include(KDECMakeSettings) include(KDECompilerSettings) include(KDEInstallDirs) find_package(KCoreAddons) - Alexander Neundorf On Sept. 26, 2013, 2:37 p.m., Aurélien Gâteau wrote

Re: Fwd: Reminder: use KF5::foo instead of ${foo_LIBRARIES} in CMakeLists

On Thursday 26 September 2013, Aurélien Gâteau wrote: On Wednesday 25 September 2013 18:08:31 you wrote: [snip] Do we know why do we need the KF5:: namespacing? I guess it is to avoid confusion: some frameworks are prefixed with 'k' but others are not (frameworkintegration, itemmodels,

Re: Fwd: Reminder: use KF5::foo instead of ${foo_LIBRARIES} in CMakeLists

On Wednesday 25 September 2013, Aurélien Gâteau wrote: ... Unfortunately, ALIAS is a new feature of the add_library command, which is only available in cmake git for now and will be in 2.8.12. Therefore we cannot use this solution right now. This means we can't have standalone builds of tier2

Re: Making KDocTools independent of KArchive

On Wednesday 25 September 2013, Albert Astals Cid wrote: El Dimarts, 24 de setembre de 2013, a les 14:09:57, Kevin Ottens va escriure: On Tuesday 24 September 2013 13:48:55 Albert Astals Cid wrote: El Dimarts, 24 de setembre de 2013, a les 08:49:20, Kevin Ottens va escriure: On

Re: Templates for frameworks CMake files

On Tuesday 24 September 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Aurélien Gâteau wrote: Hi, I have been playing around with itemviews CMake files and put together some templates for the top level CMakeLists.txt and *Config.cmake.in. You can find them attached there. Any one against me adding those

Re: Frameworks Overview

On Tuesday 24 September 2013, Ben Cooksley wrote: On Sep 24, 2013 7:33 AM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: On Monday 23 September 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hey, On Monday, September 23, 2013 00:27:21 Cornelius Schumacher wrote: On Thursday 19 September 2013

Re: kde4_add_plugin on KF5

On Thursday 19 September 2013, Alex Merry wrote: On 19/09/13 17:00, Aleix Pol wrote: Hi, We should decide what we do with the add_plugin macro. Should I install it as kf5_add_plugin from KCoreAddons? Do we want something different or better? Would e-c-m be the right place for it?

Re: Review Request 112772: Create an ecm_mark_as_autotest macro

On Sept. 17, 2013, 6:26 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: The macro does more than the name implies, additionally to marking it as test it also actually adds the test. So I'd prefer a different name. Having said that, the CMakeLists.txt in the various tests/ subdirs in KDE

Re: Review Request 112772: Create an ecm_mark_as_autotest macro

be written which can be used in all those places ? - Alexander Neundorf On Sept. 17, 2013, 12:35 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112772

Re: Dependency specifications

On Sunday 15 September 2013, Aleix Pol wrote: On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Stephen Kelly steve...@gmail.com wrote: Aleix Pol wrote: I'd say that all Qt dependencies in the module should be defined only once in the root CMakeLists.txt. Actually this should be the only file with

Re: Plugin locator performance ballpark

On Sunday 08 September 2013, David Faure wrote: On Thursday 05 September 2013 01:04:52 Sebastian Kügler wrote: Reading just $PLUGINS/kf5, 52 plugins 21893.0 microsec (KServiceTypeTrader) 95835.0 microsec (Metadata) -- Reading metadata is 4-5 slower, ~100ms Reading $PLUGINS

Re: Review Request 112451: Adapt the DocBook finders to newer naming conventions

REQUIRED_VARS DocBookXSL_DIR ) After that you can set the old UPPERCASE variables for compatibility if you want to. - Alexander Neundorf On Sept. 4, 2013, 2:50 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote

Re: DBusMenuQt5 cmake foo

On Saturday 31 August 2013, David Faure wrote: On Saturday 31 August 2013 02:51:09 Sebastian Kügler wrote: So I've tried both alternative, changing both calls to either DBusMenuQt or DBusMenuQt5, but neither of them works, both break over the package not being found, but required. I've

Re: Updating CMake requirement to 2.8.12 RC 1

On Friday 23 August 2013, Ben Cooksley wrote: On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:14 PM, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote: On Friday 23 August 2013 06:51:23 Martin Graesslin wrote: Given that it's already lots of work to keep up with the constant breakage due to changes in frameworks the outlook of

Re: Updating CMake requirement to 2.8.12 RC 1

On Tuesday 20 August 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, CMake 2.8.12 RC 1 was released a few hours ago: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.user/47443 Updating to that will allow us to get on the home straight with regard to our buildsystem files. For example,

Re: I'm out

On Wednesday 21 August 2013, Mark wrote: ... Hi Alexander, I'm sorry to hear that! I hope you keep sticking around in KDE :) As for the issues, why don't you and Stephen just find yourself a quiet place on IRC and talk about it? Good news for Dominik: as I wrote, this is a break from KDE

Re: I'm out

On Thursday 22 August 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello, On Thursday 22 August 2013 09:14:16 Stephen Kelly wrote: Mark wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: until recently I thought I was still the maintainer of the buildsystem

Re: Updating CMake requirement to 2.8.12 RC 1

On Wednesday 21 August 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello, On Tuesday 20 August 2013 23:23:30 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Tuesday 20 August 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: please wait with updating the required version until 2.8.12 final is out. There have

Re: KF5 Update Meeting Minutes 2013-w31

On Wednesday 21 August 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Tuesday 20 August 2013 22:31:28 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Wednesday 31 July 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello, On Wednesday 31 July 2013 12:37:52 Stephen Kelly wrote: Kevin Ottens wrote: Once the splitting will be done I'm

I'm out

Hi, until recently I thought I was still the maintainer of the buildsystem for KDE4 and also KF5, but I think the consensus on this list here is that Stephen has taken over this role. So I'll let him do that, and stay out of the way. I'll still have a look at KDE4 stuff, but for KF5 (including

Re: Notes from Frameworks5 Promo BoF at Akademy

On Thursday 08 August 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Wednesday 07 August 2013 14:03:54 Jos Poortvliet wrote: On Wednesday 31 July 2013 12:54:53 Jos Poortvliet wrote: Heya, I know it's late and perhaps somebody already send these, but if not, here they are: the notes of the

Re: Updating CMake requirement to 2.8.12 RC 1

Hi, On Tuesday 20 August 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, CMake 2.8.12 RC 1 was released a few hours ago: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.user/47443 Updating to that will allow us to get on the home straight with regard to our buildsystem files. please

Re: KF5 Update Meeting Minutes 2013-w31

On Tuesday 30 July 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello everyone, This is the minutes of the Week 31 KF5 meeting. As usual it has been held on #kde-devel at 4pm Paris time. Were present: afiestas, agateau, apol, ben2367, d_ed, dfaure, mck182, mgraesslin, miroslav, sebas, steveire, teo,

Re: find_package(XCB ...) ?

On Sunday 28 July 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi Martin, I'm facing some challenges building kde-workspace on top of Frameworks. XCB is not found, do you know which packages I need to have it found through find_package? It searches for Xlib-xcb.h and libX11-xcb.so. Probably something like

Re: Review Request 111649: Prevent linking to Qt4 by providing a FindDBusMenuQt5.cmake file

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111649/#review36495 --- Ship it! Looks good as far as I see. - Alexander Neundorf

Re: Review Request 111678: Fix not found sonnet(core|ui)_export.h

some parameter to the generate_export_header() call or was it kind of hard to figure out where that header file is coming from ? - Alexander Neundorf On July 25, 2013, 12:38 p.m., Martin Gräßlin wrote: --- This is an automatically

Re: cmake problems in KDELibs4Config

On Thursday 25 July 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi Alex, On Wednesday, July 24, 2013 22:27:46 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Wednesday 24 July 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: What to do... So, kde4support depends on a lot of stuff in kdelibs. Some libs in kdelibs still depend

Re: Review Request 111649: Prevent linking to Qt4 based DBusMenuQt

On July 23, 2013, 6:47 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: What's the current state of dbusmenuqt ? Can it be built against both Qt4 and Qt5 ? If so, do they have different version numbers then ? I don't like that an old version of FindDBusMenuQt.cmake will find the Qt4 version, while

Re: Review Request 111649: Prevent linking to Qt4 by providing a FindDBusMenuQt5.cmake file

). * for mark_as_advanced() and find_package_handle_standard_args() the singular forms are the ones to use. Thanks Alex - Alexander Neundorf On July 24, 2013, 7:26 p.m., Alexander Richardson wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail

Re: cmake problems in KDELibs4Config

On Wednesday 24 July 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi, I'm getting the following two errors when trying to build plasma-framework: macro_ensure_version doesn't exist anymore, but is used in KDELibs4Config.cmake. Is there a replacement for it? Hopefully all such changes are documented

Re: cmake problems in KDELibs4Config

On Wednesday 24 July 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Wednesday 24 July 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote: Hi, I'm getting the following two errors when trying to build plasma-framework: macro_ensure_version doesn't exist anymore, but is used in KDELibs4Config.cmake

Re: Using target names directly vs. variables

On Monday 22 July 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 14 July 2013 21:44:38 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 14 July 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 14 July 2013 11:42:26 Alexander Neundorf wrote: A good step forward to improve the experience for the user is to follow those

Re: Fancy header policy

On Tuesday 23 July 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Saturday 20 July 2013 03:12:25 Vishesh Handa wrote: ... Also, under what folder name should there includes be installed? Currently the fancy includes are installed in a KDE folder (/include/KDE/fancyHeaders). Do we want to continue with that?

Re: Review Request 111649: Prevent linking to Qt4 based DBusMenuQt

. This would make it very obvious, and the old file would just keep working. - Alexander Neundorf On July 23, 2013, 11:16 a.m., Alexander Richardson wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http

Re: Review Request 111080: Macro*.cmake changes

. :-) - Alexander Neundorf On July 22, 2013, 7:10 p.m., Andrea Scarpino wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/111080

Re: Header cleanup / Link interface (was kdewidgets: fix build)

On Friday 19 July 2013, David Faure wrote: On Friday 19 July 2013 17:40:26 wojtask w wrote: ... 3. We have situation a) framework A (public header use QObject and QWidget) - LINK_PUBLIC only to Qt5::Widgets? or both Qt5::Core and Qt5::Widgets? I don't know if deps become part of it. I

Re: Header cleanup / Link interface (was kdewidgets: fix build)

On Friday 19 July 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Stephen Kelly wrote: Qt5::Core is a public dependency of Qt5::Widgets (as is Qt5::Gui), so there's no need to try to be exhaustive with dependencies which cmake will add anyway. You only need to add 'leaf modules'. To be more clear. I'm saying

Why do we use find_package(Qt5Widgets) ?

Hi, e.g. in staging/kcrash/, there is a find_package(Qt5Widgets) I'm sure kcrash also needs QtCore, directly. Why aren't we using the component style search, i.e. find_package(Qt5 COMPONENTS Core Widgets) ? This way multiple Qt modules can be searched at once, and would be the same style as

Re: Correct way to set target include directory property ?

On Thursday 18 July 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, I just made kconfigwidgets build also standalone[1]. It didn't work immediately, since it didn't have the correct include dirs set. As I understand it, they should come from the KWidgetsAddons and KConfig

  1   2   3   4   >