---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113805/
---
(Updated Jan. 9, 2014, 9:27 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
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
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
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
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
On Nov. 12, 2013, 8:24 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
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
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
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
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113805/#review43836
---
The patch does not change the documentation and the
On Nov. 12, 2013, 4:24 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
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
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
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113805/#review43538
---
IMO the patch as it is is not good.
Several things:
1) This
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113805/
---
Review request for Build System and KDE Frameworks.
Repository:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113805/#review43479
---
Ship it!
Yes please.
- Nicolás Alvarez
On Nov. 11, 2013,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113805/#review43480
---
Maybe I've missed something, but I would like to have it
On Nov. 11, 2013, 9:02 p.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?
In normal CMake, -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug builds without optimization and with
debugging
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
