On Friday 22 November 2013 10:55:09 David Faure wrote: > On Tuesday 12 November 2013 22:56:47 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > 4) > > find_package(KArchive) > > find_package(Solid) > > find_package(KConfig) > > find_package(ECM) > > include(KDECMakeSettings) > > include(KDEInstallDirs) > > include(KDECompilerSettings) > > If all it takes to avoid a "tier0" (kf5umbrella) dependency in all the > frameworks is to write 3 lines instead of one, I'm very very much in favour > of it. > > Third-party users of our frameworks can choose between the verbose-with-no- > deps solution and the find_package(KF5 COMPONENTS ...) solution. I know I > would recommend the first one. > > The find_package(KF5 COMPONENTS ...) solution, i.e. the kf5umbrella > dependency is mostly interesting for KDE developers, where the small added > dependency is not a problem (we require all frameworks to be present > anyway) and on the other hand we have lots and lots of such find_package > calls (so the shorthand writing is useful). This makes kf5umbrella a tier4 > thing in my mind (convenience for KDE SC), rather than a tier0 (mandatory > requirement for even tier1 frameworks). > > Option 6 (a tier0) is exactly I don't want, because it kills option 4 above, > for third-party users.
I totally agree to all the above. It's what makes the most sense from a third party developers perspective while providing a bit of extra comfort to the products of our own community. Cheers. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
