On Dienstag, 4. Januar 2022 19:41:45 CET Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > Am Dienstag, 4. Januar 2022, 18:07:45 CET schrieb Volker Krause: > > - in some places includes with the framework prefix don't seem to work > > anymore (ie. <KFramework/KBla> vs <KBla>), any idea where those extra > > include directories came from/got lost? > > FTR, pointed on irc to some insights about design of include folder layout > noted in an older comment here: > https://invent.kde.org/pim/akonadi/-/merge_requests/70#note_300273 > > And follow-up on what makes path relative to "include/KF5" work: > https://invent.kde.org/pim/akonadi/-/merge_requests/70#note_300304
Thanks for the input, that explains a few things indeed :) > Seems at least the version files as currently installed do not match the > pattern as described above, but that might have been just a mistake which > happened to work, so no-one noticed. > Installing kfoo_version.h instead of to include/KF5 to include/KF5/KFoo > should still work as before., at least for anything which reads include > paths from installed metadata like cmake config files, pkgconfig files or > qmake pri files. > > The currently by KF5 modules provided pkgconfig files or qmake pri files > seem to even never add "include/KF5" in the samples I looked at, so any > #include <kfoo_version.h> would have never worked with them. > > So I would propose to fix things and adapt the version files to be installed > into the module prefix now already. Any serious project should get the > include paths from the build metadata and not try to heuristically find > version headers and try to heuristically detect the version from that. Here's a pilot MR for this: https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/kio/-/merge_requests/693 Regards, Volker
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
