On Tuesday 18 December 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > yes, but forgot to answer. > > No strong reason here. The options containing "HAVE" are based on whether > > that thing existed on the system where the library was built. This one is > > independent on whether udisk2 existed on that system, so I thought "USE" > > might be better. > > I might also use "USE" for all those options... > > Ah, actually I misread the comment. I thought the udisks2 one was about > using the 'system' udisks2.
Sorry, what do you mean exactly with the "system udisks2" ? > We've used HAVE for variables like this before, right? Is that the common > way? I think the "HAVE" is typically for stuff which exists or not. The cmake option is called "WITH_SOLID_UDISKS2", it can be set by the user, independent whether udisk2 is used on the current system or not. So HAVE sounds slightly wrong to me. Except if interpreted as "the installed solid has support for udisk2". Alex _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
