Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[René J . V . Bertin]

On Thursday October 22 2015 18:48:30 Marko Käning wrote:

> have you followed the discussion with Qt's developers regarding the QSP patch 
> [1]?
> If not, I advise you to do a little reading there!
> Qt won’t ever support such an approach, i.e. one would have to patch it, if 
> KDE itself doesn’t
> come with its own provisions for this...

Not exactly, no. The patch was rejected in the presented form, but we were 
invited to file a bug report (I think it's 
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-44473). Here we (me, IIRC) managed to 
make the case for special needs by MacPorts and family.
My understanding is that the door is still open for a QSP patch that does not 
alter the default QSP behaviour, which is exactly what my patch does (i.e. it 
requires activation).

> If every single KDE application wants to be self-contained - to be more 
> easily distributable -
> then that’s fine, especially for bigger apps like KMail, DigiKam, Marble, 
> KDEnlive… This would
> perhaps even make a distribution via the App Store possible. ;-)

I highly doubt that KMail could be made self-contained. Kontact *maybe*, but 
that will be one hell of a stunt to pull off, I fear.

> Could it be, that we have to introduce a QSP patch in MacPorts’ qt5-mac to 
> revert back to the
> Linuxy way of XDG paths?

Have you forgotten I'm working on that, and that I actually created a qt5-kde 
port so that (y)our KF5 ports could depend on a port with the required 
patch(es) and install layout?

My QSP patch now comes with a way to include the activation switch via qmake's 
"QT += " mechanism, or as an additional package added via cmake. I hope that 
makes it possible to include it via the ECM macro that declares the required Qt 
module without further modifications.
We'd have to patch each toplevel CMakeLists.txt, but for KDE4 we already did 
that for the documentation, so that's not a big deal.

That means that a single Qt install can provide "native" QSPs, or XDG-ish QSPs 
to binaries that include the activation module.

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

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[Marko Käning]

Hi René,

On 22 Oct 2015, at 19:24 , René J.V. Bertin  wrote:
> Not exactly, no. The patch was rejected in the presented form, but we were 
> invited to file a bug report (I think it's 
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-44473). Here we (me, IIRC) managed to 
> make the case for special needs by MacPorts and family.
> My understanding is that the door is still open for a QSP patch that does not 
> alter the default QSP behaviour, which is exactly what my patch does (i.e. it 
> requires activation).

ok, you're right.


>> Could it be, that we have to introduce a QSP patch in MacPorts’ qt5-mac to 
>> revert back to the Linuxy way of XDG paths?
> 
> Have you forgotten I'm working on that, and that I actually created a qt5-kde 
> port so that (y)our KF5 ports could depend on a port with the required 
> patch(es) and install layout?

How could I forget that? ;-) I was merely trying to trigger the discussion!


Greets,
Marko
___
Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[Marko Käning]

Thanks René and Jeremy,

On 22 Oct 2015, at 22:43 , Jeremy Whiting  wrote:

> ...It sounds like a good solution for embedding a copy of Qt next
> to each application for windows use (and maybe for osx use too if
> resources don't make it completely unneccessary), but not for the
> macports shared Qt case.

for clarifying this.

Greets,
Marko


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

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[René J . V . Bertin]

On Thursday October 22 2015 22:05:59 Marko Käning wrote:

> > https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-44473?focusedCommentId=272971=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-272971)
> > Because the proposal supports environment variables too, I guess this
> > would also cover the OS X needs (env XDG_CONFIG_DIRS).
> 
> that actually slipped my attention back then! :-|
> 
> OK, perhaps that is a way to go then also for MacPorts?! @René?

I understood from Jeremy's reply at the time that it wasn't exactly what we'd 
need. I'm not familiar with how qt.conf is to be used, but my 1st impression is 
that neither a per-app-bundle qt.conf nor a central, shared one would be the 
perfect solution. The per-application approach will be much more 
maintenance-heavy, and a central, shared file would mean that all applications 
depending on Qt5 use either the one or the other QSP "flavour".


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

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[Jeremy Whiting]

Yeah, if we go that direction on mac it would be fine for bundled Qt,
but not for shared Qt. It would make all applications that use qt5-mac
or qt5-kde or whatnot use linuxy paths or not. It's a runtime switch,
so not very helpful if you've installed stuff to linuxy paths and then
let the user choose to toggle it and fail to find all the resources
needed. It sounds like a good solution for embedding a copy of Qt next
to each application for windows use (and maybe for osx use too if
resources don't make it completely unneccessary), but not for the
macports shared Qt case.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:37 PM, René J.V.  wrote:
> On Thursday October 22 2015 22:05:59 Marko Käning wrote:
>
>> > https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-44473?focusedCommentId=272971=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-272971)
>> > Because the proposal supports environment variables too, I guess this
>> > would also cover the OS X needs (env XDG_CONFIG_DIRS).
>>
>> that actually slipped my attention back then! :-|
>>
>> OK, perhaps that is a way to go then also for MacPorts?! @René?
>
> I understood from Jeremy's reply at the time that it wasn't exactly what we'd 
> need. I'm not familiar with how qt.conf is to be used, but my 1st impression 
> is that neither a per-app-bundle qt.conf nor a central, shared one would be 
> the perfect solution. The per-application approach will be much more 
> maintenance-heavy, and a central, shared file would mean that all 
> applications depending on Qt5 use either the one or the other QSP "flavour".
>
>
> R.
> ___
> Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
> Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
___
Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[René J . V . Bertin]

On Wednesday October 21 2015 13:08:46 Dominik Haumann wrote:

> In Windows, such a package manager does not exist. KDE tried to create
> such a package manager through the emerge/KDE Windows installer, but
> this is non-standard [on Windows] and simply not what users want.

That's not entirely accurate. Microsoft themselves push updates through the 
equivalent of a package manager (I'm getting updates for stuff used by MS 
Office without even having that suite installed). If you install Apple software 
you'll get Apple Software Update which does what its name suggest (how many 
iPhone users don't own a Mac - clearly they are not annoyed enough with the 
situation to dump either the iPhone or MS Windows).

I'm only an occasional MSWin user these days, so I'm not going to say much more 
about this, other than that I'd hesitate a lot to install binary packages 
provided by the KDE community if those all installed their own copy of the 
required dependencies. A matter of principle which I'd also apply to a 
commercial entity providing a range of KF5 applications (those could all share 
a dedicated set of Qt/KF5 dependencies, though). Also, I suppose that if KF5 
applications were to be provided by cygwin, they'd want resources to be shared.

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

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[Marko Käning]

Hi Ralf,

On 22 Oct 2015, at 08:35 , Ralf Habacker  wrote:
> umbrello for example depends on about 50 other libraries and packages
> https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:rhabacker:branches:windows:mingw:win32:KF511.
> Not patching Qt requires to repack every single package :-(, by either
> hacking the cmake build system to use different install locations or to
> reorder the installed files after cmake installing.
> 
> Having Qt support for "standard linux path layout" for example by
> extending qt.conf to support QStandardPath (qt.conf is already required
> for KDE on Windows) shortcuts this repackaging need completely.


have you followed the discussion with Qt's developers regarding the QSP patch 
[1]?
If not, I advise you to do a little reading there!
Qt won’t ever support such an approach, i.e. one would have to patch it, if KDE 
itself doesn’t
come with its own provisions for this...

If every single KDE application wants to be self-contained - to be more easily 
distributable -
then that’s fine, especially for bigger apps like KMail, DigiKam, Marble, 
KDEnlive… This would
perhaps even make a distribution via the App Store possible. ;-)


However, if one wants to avoid all the duplication of libs to be shipped, then 
one better uses
a package management system like MacPorts, Homebrew, Fink on OSX and who knows 
what on Windows.


This however will require extra efforts for those systems, if KDE doesn’t 
somehow envisions such
distribution mechanisms for non-Linux distros.

Wondering where things are heading to now...


I think it’s great, that this thread(s) started a discussion about this 
pressing topic.

:-)


Could it be, that we have to introduce a QSP patch in MacPorts’ qt5-mac to 
revert back to the
Linuxy way of XDG paths?

Greets,
Marko





[1] https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/103277/

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

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[René J . V . Bertin]

On Wednesday October 21 2015 22:12:00 Christoph Cullmann wrote:

> Maybe, but actually, even with the most dumb application bundle I have 
> created ATM
> all stuff together is around 50 MB compressed and installed 125 MB.
> 
> This includes a more or less complete Qt (with webkit, some debug plugins and 
> other not used stuff) +

For the record, a complete Qt 5.5.0 build minus QtWebEngine in an xz-compressed 
tarball takes up 77Mb. That's using -O3 and link-time optimisation (the latter 
reduces the build size somewhat).

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

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[René J . V . Bertin]

Please, hold this poll in the user communities (as far as they exist), and not 
only among the developers.

That is of course if you're doing all this with the requirements of the people 
who'll end up using your stuff foremost in mind.

I think you'll find that many if not most Mac users don't care one way or 
another, as long as there's an easy way to install things. You might even find 
that many Mac users are short on disk space and thus not enthusiastic at all 
about the idea of having to install every dependency anew for each new 
dependent app.

And whatever you end up deciding, implement it in such a way that KF5/Mac can 
still be built and used as on any other *ix/BSD (minus the X11 dependency of 
course) without having to figure out all kinds of ugly hacks. In other words, 
MacPorts, Fink, HomeBrew etc. should be supported too.

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

Re: [KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

[René J . V . Bertin]

On Tuesday October 20 2015 13:29:21 Jeremy Whiting wrote:

>applications. I can also see the same power users recommending
>individual applications to their relatives (moms, grandmothers, etc.)
>using single application installers as you described. "Here mom,
>download this one bundle to install kxstitch on your windows laptop."
>etc. 

A power user who doesn't clone his own "stable" (and above all, tested/known) 
install onto his (grand)mom's computer but tells her to download something 
else? Doesn't compute for me, except if the goal is to discourage said 
(grand)mom and above all dissuade her from coming looking for some more free 
support in the future :P

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