On 2015-08-14 10:01, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
Hi,
ECM's KDECompilerSettings.cmake contains:
# Default to hidden visibility for symbols
set(CMAKE_CXX_VISIBILITY_PRESET hidden)
set(CMAKE_VISIBILITY_INLINES_HIDDEN 1)
This raises a warning [1] for CMake 3.3+ and ignores this.
David Faure and I
On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote:
>
> Overview of Proposed Fix
>
>
> What we would like to do instead is the classic Comp. Sci. fix: Another layer
> of indirection.
>
> In this case, we'd like to re-organize the `kde-build-metadata` to map to the
> sa
On Friday 14 August 2015 11:01:47 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>
> This raises a warning [1] for CMake 3.3+ and ignores this.
> Don't we want to set the old policy CMP0063 for now?
> Or even prepare for removal of CMP0063 (see [2])?
> I know, that would not be very soon.
This discussion is on-going
GENERAL INFO
BUILD UNSTABLE
Build URL:
https://build.kde.org/job/kdelibs%20KDE-4.14%20latest-qt4/PLATFORM=Linux,compiler=gcc/13/
Project: PLATFORM=Linux,compiler=gcc
Date of build: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:27:09 +
Build duration: 34 min
CHANGE SET
Revision 150d983674e9d61e2809316e062e5d91c785560
GENERAL INFO
BUILD UNSTABLE
Build URL:
https://build.kde.org/job/kdelibs%20KDE-4.14%20stable-qt4/PLATFORM=Linux,compiler=gcc/12/
Project: PLATFORM=Linux,compiler=gcc
Date of build: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:27:09 +
Build duration: 13 min
CHANGE SET
Revision 150d983674e9d61e2809316e062e5d91c785560
On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure wrote:
> (*) I keep finding the "division" term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this
> shouldn't be
> called "product" instead. I.e. matching how we release things. Nowadays we
> basically have 4 products (frameworks, plasma, applications, extragear?),
> pr
On Sun, August 16, 2015 17:48:59 John Layt wrote:
> On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure wrote:
> > (*) I keep finding the "division" term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this
> > shouldn't be called "product" instead. I.e. matching how we release
> > things. Nowadays we basically have 4 product
2015-08-11 0:37 GMT+03:00 David Jarvie :
> On Mon, August 10, 2015 11:31 am, Dāvis Mosāns wrote:
>> 2015-08-10 11:34 GMT+03:00 John Layt :
>>> On 9 August 2015 at 17:26, Dāvis Mosāns wrote:
When I implement date/time related things I always use timestamps in
UTC everywhere
On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
> remains unique. It might even make things easier since there would be no way
> for a sub
David Faure ha scritto:
> On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
>> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
>> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
>> remains unique. It might even make things easier since there
On Sunday, August 16, 2015 11:21:00 PM David Faure wrote:
> On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
> > have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
> > remains unique. It migh
11 matches
Mail list logo
