Dear Michael, On 04 Mar 2015, at 02:00 , Michael Pyne <mp...@kde.org> wrote: > There's a reason I'd mentioned kdesrc-build's current behavior in my reply to > that RR. :)
yep, I figured that. And thus I decided to come back to this issue - targeting a wider audience. :) > I personally would retain empty entries. OK, I see, it makes sense to revert all these removals then, just to make sure that the current state of kdesrc-build behaves as it was supposed to do with these explicit defines… > But that would be a significant behavior change, especially for lesser-used > modules (e.g. in playground/) that don't necessarily receive CI coverage, but > which users and developers may still want to build via kdesrc-build. Yes, I see that point. I guess the majority of projects currently does NOT have CI… So, imposing the CI’s way of dealing with dependencies would add a lot of extra work on all devs… > I think the real solution (so that we don't need empty branch-group hacks) > would come from finally implementing the proposal Ben and I had made back in > August 2014 (currently just an email thread in kde-frameworks-devel > https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2014-August/018391.html). Yes, I remember your post from last August, but unfortunately there was no (visual) feedback on the list, nor is there any feedback here on K-F-D up to now - which is no good news, I suppose. > I ran out of time to do effectively any development for some months after > that, so as far as I know there's been no progress. But that's the direction > we *intend* to head... now would be a good time if you want to review the > proposal to see if it would help or hurt your efforts. Right, I do believe it is time to come up with a decision in this respect! In the light of Ben’s and Scarlett’s work on the new (multi-platform) KDE/CI system it would be good to also tackle dependency definitions for kdesrc-build. Scarlett has already acted in this regard, so it would be good if we could make that more consistent for kdesrc-build as well. Yet, I am afraid the subject of this thread isn’t attracting too many readers. Probably you should simply repost your proposal from last August and ask for any active discussion. I believe CI is a critical component for KDE’s further development and thus shouldn’t be treated with too much neglect. ;-) Greets, Marko _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel