[ resend now I am subscribed, apologies for any dupes ]
Hi all,
I am working on trying to revive PyKDE4 as PyKF5 and more [1]. The procedure is:
1. create SIP file from the relevant KF5 .h file(s)
2. run the SIP compiler to produce the actual binding C++ code
3. compile the binding C++ code
4. l
Hi David,
On 23 April 2016 at 09:56, David Faure wrote:
> Shaheed !!!
> Long time no see ;)
>
Indeed, I think it is about 10 years since I last did anything here!
> On Wednesday 20 April 2016 19:48:30 Shaheed Haque wrote:
> > The whole point of what I am doing is to a
Hi all,
I am working on trying to revive PyKDE4 as PyKF5 and more [1]. The procedure is:
1. create SIP file from the relevant KF5 .h file(s)
2. run the SIP compiler to produce the actual binding C++ code
3. compile the binding C++ code
4. link the result into a .so file against the relevant KF5 l
AFAIK, this affects NTFS too. I believe the semantics are "store as
case-sensitive, retrieve as case insensitive".
And, FWIW, this was right PITA for the Python binding effort; in the
end, in my "unofficial" version I went with only shipping the new
CamelCase files where possible. I'm not exactly
ION
tests/GenerateSipBindings/cpplib.cpp PRE-CREATION
tests/GenerateSipBindings/rules_SipTest.py PRE-CREATION
tests/GenerateSipBindings/testscript.py PRE-CREATION
toolchain/Android.cmake 20e65f87ac5a4fe9a0089c596d1d392214053817
toolchain/specifydependencies.cmake e01c61a7177c5868f26cb6233d9cb44fc757b6e3
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129756/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
MakeLists.txt PRE-CREATION
tests/GenerateSipBindings/cpplib.h PRE-CREATION
tests/GenerateSipBindings/cpplib.cpp PRE-CREATION
tests/GenerateSipBindings/rules_SipTest.py PRE-CREATION
tests/GenerateSipBindings/testscript.py PRE-CREATION
toolchain/Android.cmake 20e65f87ac5a4fe9a0089c596d1d392214053817
toolchain/specifydependencies.cmake e01c61a7177c5868f26cb6233d9cb44fc757b6e3
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129756/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
437d38153fa8fe859bd34d7aa6c
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129759/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
fs
-
find-modules/sip_generator.py 10be147711540437d38153fa8fe859bd34d7aa6c
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129759/diff/
Testing (updated)
---
Run across all of /usr/include/KF5, and reviewed the changed output.
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
Start 6: kiconutilstest
6/6 Test #6: kiconutilstest ... Passed0.08 sec
100% tests passed, 0 tests failed out of 6
Total Test time (real) = 1.04 sec
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
2/49 Test #2: ExecuteCoreModules
Passed0.46 sec
Start 3: ExecuteKDEModules
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
----------
On Jan. 3, 2017, 11:18 p.m., Shaheed Haque wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129765/
> ---
Passed0.46 sec
Start 3: ExecuteKDEModules
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
: ExecuteKDEModules
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
ce7a70c8218
tests/GenerateSipBindings/cpplib.cpp c5b7a5fbe6310b6b3742c3d35d2d04c67d77066f
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129759/diff/
Testing
---
Run across all of /usr/include/KF5, and reviewed the changed output.
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
iewboard.kde.org/r/129759/diff/
Testing
---
Run across all of /usr/include/KF5, and reviewed the changed output.
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
Run across all of /usr/include/KF5, and reviewed the changed output.
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
iewboard.kde.org/r/129759/diff/
Testing
---
Run across all of /usr/include/KF5, and reviewed the changed output.
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
/129763/diff/
Testing (updated)
---
Rebased on current ECM master
=
$ git log
commit 6f2bdd753663b5bea97d716b5e7117f80dcc95a1
Author: Shaheed Haque
Date: Tue Jan 3 14:27:57 2017 +
Undo a change to the API for create_sip which is not actually needed
: Shaheed Haque
Date: Tue Jan 3 14:27:57 2017 +
Undo a change to the API for create_sip which is not actually needed.
The change broke the integration with the bulk testing tools, these
will be restored in a subsequent commit.
commit 3e6eb0562e5fd3831d66db4720c67cc950b3536c
a91b54864a5d3601a37f8f788fc4f3e9bb8ba323
tests/GenerateSipBindings/rules_SipTest.py
c570a03988e63bf6a03641fa21035ee678dcad22
tests/GenerateSipBindings/testscript.py
e79706bcb2d337484e8ce2098eaacd95c15cae9b
Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129900/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
modules
(Modules built)
$ find tmp2/python/ -name *.so|wc -l
25
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
(From module-compiler.py)
ERROR: Summary: 140 processing errors for 165 modules
(Modules built)
$ find tmp2/python/ -name *.so|wc -l
25
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
module-compiler.py)
ERROR: Summary: 140 processing errors for 165 modules
(Modules built)
$ find tmp2/python/ -name *.so|wc -l
25
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
module-compiler.py)
ERROR: Summary: 140 processing errors for 165 modules
(Modules built)
$ find tmp2/python/ -name *.so|wc -l
25
Thanks,
Shaheed Haque
shaheed created this revision.
shaheed set the repository for this revision to R240 Extra CMake Modules.
Restricted Application added projects: Frameworks, Build System.
Restricted Application added subscribers: Build System, Frameworks.
TEST PLAN
No code changes.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake
shaheed retitled this revision from "Some comment-only tidyups and PEP-8
fixes." to "Python bindings: Some comment-only tidyups and PEP-8 fixes.".
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D4509
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.kde.org/settings/p
shaheed created this revision.
shaheed set the repository for this revision to R240 Extra CMake Modules.
Restricted Application added projects: Frameworks, Build System.
Restricted Application added subscribers: Build System, Frameworks.
TEST PLAN
Add to the unit tests and verify the result is m
shaheed added a comment.
The PEP-8 changes are some blank line changes.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D4509
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.kde.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: shaheed, #build_system, #frameworks, skelly
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> skelly wrote in rules_engine.py:58
> I don't think this should be here.
I disagree. Having this in the code suppresses the false positives which are
caused by the "_" used by gettext.
> skelly wrote in rules_engine.py:704
> I don't think the com
shaheed added a comment.
I think the scope of the changes in this commit are perfectly reasonable. I
don't think it is unreasonable to group them either.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D4509
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.kde.org
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> skelly wrote in rules_engine.py:494
> Does the docs match the code if you add this here? Why is this in this commit?
Yes. Why not?
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D4509
EMAIL PREFERENCES
htt
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> skelly wrote in sip_generator.py:172
> It was possible to handle exports without looking for the text EXPORT in the
> MACRO NAME. Why is deprecated different?
Because the expansion of the attribute in this case contains not a string, but
a compi
Fwiw, I think that a specific version check may not be needed. The original
code I wrote, which I assume Steve may have simply carried forward in the
cmake ecm logic, DID have a version check but only because the python
bindings were newish circa libclang 3.8.
Afaik, there is no logic which is ver
I did some negative testing, and from what I can see, 3.8 might well be OK
for the ECM fork. My version depends on 3.9 (for example, there are some
new constants defined by clang which I use), but I've no idea if this will
ever be merged.
On 4 April 2017 at 19:08, Heiko Becker wrote:
> heikobeck
I just added that gem to
https://community.kde.org/Guidelines_and_HOWTOs/CMake/FAQs.
On 25 May 2017 06:08, "Luca Beltrame" wrote:
Il giorno Thu, 25 May 2017 09:25:02 +1200
Ben Cooksley ha scritto:
[Quoting Ben but responding to Thomas, since I'm not subscribed to
kde-buildsystem]
> > complain
shaheed created this revision.
Restricted Application added projects: Frameworks, Build System.
Restricted Application added subscribers: Build System, Frameworks.
REVISION SUMMARY
As per https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=150464598710128&w=2, this is a
snapshot of the current state of the S
shaheed retitled this revision from "Not-to-be-merged review fo Python bindings
generator" to "Not-to-be-merged review of Python bindings generator".
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736
To: shaheed, lbeltrame
Cc: #frameworks, #build_system
shaheed edited the summary of this revision.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736
To: shaheed, lbeltrame
Cc: #frameworks, #build_system
shaheed edited the summary of this revision.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736
To: shaheed, lbeltrame
Cc: #frameworks, #build_system
shaheed added a comment.
My comments here are phrased as if this SIP-based approach was the solution
eventually adopted (cppyy might be different). With that said...
This...
> (this thing is huge).
and this...
> One question: would it be possible to have the bindings per-fr
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> lbeltrame wrote in CMakeLists.txt:49
> Don't use `find_package(FOO REQUIRED)`. Use `find_package(FOO)` then
> `set_package_properties(FOO TYPE REQUIRED...`. There are many examples in KDE
> git you can use. You will need to include FeatureSummary
shaheed added a comment.
My suggestion would be to focus any review efforts in this order:
1. files in the top level directory.
2. possibly files the ./templates subdirectory.
3. __init__.py and CMakelists.txt in the ./PyKF5 subdirectory. Ignore all
other files therein.
REPOSITORY
shaheed added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736#154948, @jasontibbitts wrote:
> I hate to add a ping without any useful review, but I'm quite interested in
this effort as I have a pykde4-based application which I would really like to
get ported to the modern frameworks. Cu
shaheed added a comment.
I'm afraid your's truly might take a bit of the blame. The basis of the logic
was likely my original Python code, which did just enough to make Ubuntu work.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D8780
To: turbov
Cc: shah
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> turbov wrote in FindPythonModuleGeneration.cmake:212
> What distribution is this? Why only 3.8 and 3.9?? Why not 4.0 or 5.0???
>
> I've just checked Ubuntu 14.04 (Clang 3.3 to 3.9 available) and 17.10 (up to
> 5.0 available)... installing `libcla
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> shaheed wrote in FindPythonModuleGeneration.cmake:212
> The original code had a minimum requirement of either 3.8 or 3.9 (I don't
> recall exactly, but the code here implies 3.8 is the minimum). Newer versions
> are fine.
I remembered as soon as
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> turbov wrote in FindPythonModuleGeneration.cmake:217
> As for me, I would remove whole this part of "brute forcing" available clang
> version. I can't see how it could work w/o additional hints due a location
> of `libclang` is not a standard di
47 matches
Mail list logo
