Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated July 20, 2016, 1:06 p.m.) Status -- This change has been

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On July 2, 2016, 11:11 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > Looks OK to me. > > Please ensure it still compiles+works on Linux, and push it after July 4 > > (so that it doesn't break KF 5.24 at the last minute). > > René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Great. That probably means I'll be pushing it well

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On July 2, 2016, 1:11 p.m., David Faure wrote: > > Looks OK to me. > > Please ensure it still compiles+works on Linux, and push it after July 4 > > (so that it doesn't break KF 5.24 at the last minute). > > René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Great. That probably means I'll be pushing it well

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On July 2, 2016, 1:11 p.m., David Faure wrote: > > Looks OK to me. > > Please ensure it still compiles+works on Linux, and push it after July 4 > > (so that it doesn't break KF 5.24 at the last minute). Great. That probably means I'll be pushing it well after July 4th, though :) > On July

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review97022 --- Fix it, then Ship it! Looks OK to me. Please ensure it

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review96665 --- There is one general question that remains: wouldn't it be

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated June 18, 2016, 11 a.m.) Review request for KDE Software on Mac

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated May 30, 2016, 8:28 p.m.) Review request for KDE Software on Mac

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated April 22, 2016, 6:03 p.m.) Review request for KDE Software on

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On April 10, 2016, 10:31 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/klauncher/klauncher_main.cpp, line 152 > > > > > > I'm curious, what's the difference between Q_OS_DARWIN and Q_OS_OSX? Q_OS_DARWIN incorporates all

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On April 10, 2016, 8:31 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > I liked what I was seeing in this patch until I got to the horrible > > code duplication introduced by kinit_mac.mm. This is not the way to go. > > Yes #ifdefs are a pain, but code duplication is 1000 times worse. In Qt, > > the

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On April 10, 2016, 10:31 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > I liked what I was seeing in this patch until I got to the horrible > > code duplication introduced by kinit_mac.mm. This is not the way to go. > > Yes #ifdefs are a pain, but code duplication is 1000 times worse. In Qt, > > the

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review94472 --- I liked what I was seeing in this patch until I got to

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated April 6, 2016, 7:15 p.m.) Review request for KDE Software on

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated April 6, 2016, 7:16 p.m.) Review request for KDE Software on

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Dec. 25, 2015, 3:42 p.m., René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit_mac.mm, lines 662-666 > > > > > > I'd love to add `[NSApp activateIgnoringOtherApps:YES]` and/or `[NSApp > > unhide]` here, preceded

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Dec. 25, 2015, 2:42 p.m., René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit_mac.mm, lines 662-666 > > > > > > I'd love to add `[NSApp activateIgnoringOtherApps:YES]` and/or `[NSApp > > unhide]` here, preceded

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Dec. 25, 2015, 3:42 p.m., René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit_mac.mm, lines 662-666 > > > > > > I'd love to add `[NSApp activateIgnoringOtherApps:YES]` and/or `[NSApp > > unhide]` here, preceded

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review90098 --- src/kdeinit/kinit_mac.mm (lines 662 - 666)

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Monday November 30 2015 09:01:25 David Faure wrote: Hi, >I never realized you could pass a shared lib to kwrapper5, that is definitely >not the intended usage, and I can tell you, nobody does this ;) Ok, just to get this straight: it doesn't make sense to pass a shared lib to kwrapper5,

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Tuesday 01 December 2015 09:53:06 René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > The entry point into kdeinit is "start kwrite please". kdeinit decides > > whether to do that using the kdeinit module (.so) or the executable. > > So what you're saying is that we should be fine (by design) if I remove the > bit

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Tuesday December 01 2015 09:56:15 David Faure wrote: > >Yes - which is exactly what my suggested patch does, AFAICS. Your patch only modifies launch() IIRC. If my understanding is correct, then that means kdeinit will fail if it decides to use the kdeinit module, because that decision is

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Tuesday December 01 2015 10:35:47 René J.V. Bertin wrote: >Your patch only modifies launch() IIRC. If my understanding is correct, then >that means kdeinit will fail if it decides to use the kdeinit module, because >that decision is not made inside launch(). Or maybe the truth is somewhere

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Thursday 26 November 2015 10:27:31 René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Yes, the *helper* does that, from within the newly exec'ed process. It's > weird, but apparently the exact "forbidden" thing is "fork - call/load > non-POSIX APIs - exec" while "fork - exec - call/load non-POSIX APIs" works. That

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On November 27, 2015 01:02:31 PM Alexander Richardson wrote: > Has anyone done measurements on a recent system? Does it give any > noticable benefit? I have not, nor are my machines good representations. I don't think considering machines with 2G of memory with older processors to be out of line

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On 26 November 2015 at 18:51, Alex Merry wrote: > On 2015-11-26 09:27, René J.V. Bertin wrote: >> >> There's something I don't really understand though: the exact same >> question you asked above. >> What's the difference between starting kwrite directly on the >> commandline

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

Alex Merry wrote: > If I recall rightly, it's a speed thing. kdeinit pre-loads some > libraries common across most KDE applications (eg: Qt5Core and Qt5Gui, Ah, right. Dive in too deeply and you can forget about underlying reasons. The real underlying mechanism is of course (IIUC) the fact that

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Thursday November 26 2015 08:54:25 David Faure wrote: >> No, with "my" fix, applications started through kwrapper appear as >> individual entries in `ps` listings, with your fix only the `kwrapper5 >> /path/to/command` entry shows up. > >I don't see how that's possible. >If kdeinit forks,

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Thursday November 26 2015 08:54:25 David Faure wrote: > Not at all, kdeinit on linux does fork+dlopen, no exec. Actually, that is true only when launch() is called with a library (.so), not when it's called with an executable! R ___

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Thursday November 26 2015 08:54:25 David Faure wrote: > But my point is exactly that: if fork+dlopen is a problem on OSX, then don't > do it, do fork+exec. That's what you do, > but then why exec something that will dlopen, instead of exec the real thing? Indeed, it's fork+dlopen that is the

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated Nov. 26, 2015, 5:20 p.m.) Review request for KDE Software on

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 8:39 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp, line 1621 > > > > > > Yes if you have to run a separate process which will then dlopen the > > kdeinit module, the whole purpose of

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On 2015-11-26 09:27, René J.V. Bertin wrote: There's something I don't really understand though: the exact same question you asked above. What's the difference between starting kwrite directly on the commandline (or through execve()), and dlopen'ing it? Why does the code go through that on

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 2:49 a.m., Lamarque Souza wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kdeinit5_proxy.cpp, line 1 > > > > > > Please add a copyright header for each new file [1]. If I am not > > mistaken all frameworks 5 files

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 8:39 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp, line 1621 > > > > > > Yes if you have to run a separate process which will then dlopen the > > kdeinit module, the whole purpose of

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated Nov. 25, 2015, 5:19 p.m.) Review request for KDE Software on

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated Nov. 25, 2015, 6 p.m.) Review request for KDE Software on Mac

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 7:39 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp, line 1621 > > > > > > Yes if you have to run a separate process which will then dlopen the > > kdeinit module, the whole purpose of

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 8:39 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp, line 1621 > > > > > > Yes if you have to run a separate process which will then dlopen the > > kdeinit module, the whole purpose of

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 8:39 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp, line 1621 > > > > > > Yes if you have to run a separate process which will then dlopen the > > kdeinit module, the whole purpose of

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 7:39 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp, line 1621 > > > > > > Yes if you have to run a separate process which will then dlopen the > > kdeinit module, the whole purpose of

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

> On Nov. 25, 2015, 8:39 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp, line 1621 > > > > > > Yes if you have to run a separate process which will then dlopen the > > kdeinit module, the whole purpose of

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

On Wednesday 25 November 2015 16:45:25 René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > No, with "my" fix, applications started through kwrapper appear as individual > entries in `ps` listings, with your fix only the `kwrapper5 /path/to/command` > entry shows up. I don't see how that's possible. If kdeinit forks,

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review88776 --- Also, as I just observed: ``` > kwrapper5

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review88779 --- src/kdeinit/CMakeLists.txt (line 15)

Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- Review request for KDE Software on Mac OS X and KDE Frameworks.

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review88782 --- src/kdeinit/kdeinit5_proxy.cpp (line 1)

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/#review88784 --- src/kdeinit/kinit.cpp (line 1619)

Re: Review Request 126161: OS X housekeeping

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/126161/ --- (Updated Nov. 25, 2015, 12:03 a.m.) Review request for KDE Software on