On 12/19/2013 07:45 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> I am also not sure yet, if
> a cross-moc is required or whether a native moc binary can be re-used.
> It's one of the open questions that I still have, and need to
> investigate the actual code generator / code generated.
Even if the code genera
On 12/19/2013 07:45 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
>> > 2) Why does the package creation result in broken cmake files generated
>> > from the Qt tarball?
> The package creation does not result in broken cmake files generated
> from the Qt tarball.
Great.
> It's just there is no clean way to over
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114537/
---
(Updated Dec. 19, 2013, 3:44 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been mar
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114537/#review45934
---
This review has been submitted with commit
0d23613537416423641
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114537/#review45932
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Hugo Pereira Da Costa
On Dec. 19, 2013,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Harald Sitter wrote:
>
>> xnox was nice enough to look into this in detail and identified the
>> problem as having a much smaller scope than I had originally thought.
>
> 1) What is the problem?
Essentially this change:
http://launchpadlibra
Harald Sitter wrote:
> xnox was nice enough to look into this in detail and identified the
> problem as having a much smaller scope than I had originally thought.
1) What is the problem?
2) Why does the package creation result in broken cmake files generated from
the Qt tarball?
Thanks,
Stev
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Harald Sitter wrote:
> tldr: in ubuntu 14.04 automoc will (currently does) fall over dead
> with a qt5 built according to frameworks build instructions. what to
> do?
xnox was nice enough to look into this in detail and identified the
problem as having a much smal
On Thursday 19 Dec 2013 09:14:42 Till Adam wrote:
>
> It might help to get Sebastian Trueg to back it publically. Assuming he
> agrees with this direction, that is :). Failing that, stressing that this
> is being done by the very maintainers of nepomuk, evolving it, rather than
> forking it, might
On Tuesday 17 Dec 2013 12:22:26 Todd wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2013 6:36 PM, "Vishesh Handa" wrote:
> > > i’ll say it again here so that it is at least on record: i really
>
> disagree
>
> > > with renaming Nepomuk. call it Nepomuk 2 or whatever, but tossing aside
> > > name recognition and years of m
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:07:18PM +0100, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> Unless somebody knows a web service which can judge the value of a word
> that internet users seem to attach to it or something like that :D
Just because I'm a bit bored atm. I found such a site:
http://i.imgur.com/OkIHqGv.png
Not
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114537/
---
Review request for kde-workspace and Hugo Pereira Da Costa.
Repository: kd
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 02:27:43 AM Mark Gaiser wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Jos Poortvliet
>
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 December 2013 12:22:26 Todd wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 2013 6:36 PM, "Vishesh Handa" wrote:
> >> > > i’ll say it again here so that it is at least on record:
13 matches
Mail list logo
