> On Oct. 20, 2015, 3:52 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
> > src/kbuildsycoca/kbuildsycoca_main.cpp, line 122
> > <https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125725/diff/1/?file=411919#file411919line122>
> >
> >     Maybe it would make sense to handle it using signal() directly here, 
> > rather than just ifdef'ing KCrash?
> 
> Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>     Perhaps, but then I would have to reimplement more or less what 
> setEmergencySaveFunction does, or? I am not sure if that makes sense, if you 
> want crash recovery, you can have KCrash.
> 
> Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>     On the other side: Ok, that was anyway not that useful, given 
> kglobalaccel + kinit use KCrash, too.
>     Perhaps I should better take a look at KCrash to make it less verbose, 
> e.g. not warn about missing drkonqui which won't be there on mac or win in 
> the normal case.
> 
> Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
>     Sure.
>     
>     Or maybe some of the code can become part of KCoreAddons?
> 
> David Faure wrote:
>     I've been thinking for quite some time that a very basic "run this 
> function on crash" and "restart on crash" functionality would be good to have 
> in QtCore. Could be KCoreAddons too indeed, otherwise.
>     No bug reporting and all that, just the basics for daemons and 
> command-line tools.
>     
>     The trick however is how would KCrash work on top of that (would it be 
> "use one or the other, they are fully independent and exclusive", or would it 
> extend this mechanism - well, by setting that crash-handler function, maybe).

> given kglobalaccel + kinit use KCrash, too.

isn't kglobalaccel only in the runtime part? If yes we can certainly make the 
complete runtime optional (which would turn it to tier1).


- Martin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125725/#review87135
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Oct. 20, 2015, 4 p.m., Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125725/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 20, 2015, 4 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks and David Faure.
> 
> 
> Repository: kservice
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> kservice depends on KCrash only for kbuildsycoca.
> make this optional and link only against it, if around. Move check to 
> kbuildsyscoca file.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   CMakeLists.txt 4c0f269 
>   src/kbuildsycoca/CMakeLists.txt 19bdc84 
>   src/kbuildsycoca/kbuildsycoca_main.cpp 03619cc 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125725/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Seems to compile fine without it.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Christoph Cullmann
> 
>

_______________________________________________
Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel

Reply via email to