[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-buildsystem
Subject: Re: [Kde-pim] Boost vs cmake 2.8.8 vs kdepimlibs master
From: Laszlo Papp <lpapp () kde ! org>
Date: 2012-12-16 23:47:00
Message-ID: CAOMwXhM1UbdOf-hq8e5YqBr5giWqv=ksHyhYi_44DnFjT6-5cQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> wrote:
> El Dilluns, 17 de desembre de 2012, a les 00:03:38, Luigi Toscano va
> escriure:
> > Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > El Diumenge, 16 de desembre de 2012, a les 23:53:23, Antonis
> Tsiapaliokas
> > > va>
> > > escriure:
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >>> Attached, can somebody give it a try ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Alex
> > >>
> > >> I have test the attached patch with 2.8.8 cmake and it doesn't work.
> > >> With the 2.8.9 cmake, the issues is solved, without the attached patch
> > >> needed.
> > >
> > > So let's go for the cmake increase?
> > >
> > > Anyone against it? (I will need an answer before RC1 tag on tuesday
> night)
>
I am all for it.
On a side note, I have never understood the objection against 2.8.9 before
as that is what was also required for framework. Hence, it would somewhat
lower the barrier for the framework contribution, too.
IIRC, one of the main issues was the debian way, but it does not seem the
case anymore:
http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=names&keywords=cmake
Laszlo
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Albert Astals Cid \
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aacid@kde.org" \
target="_blank">aacid@kde.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"> El Dilluns, 17 de desembre de 2012, a les 00:03:38, Luigi \
Toscano va escriure:<br> <div class="im">> Albert Astals Cid wrote:<br>
> > El Diumenge, 16 de desembre de 2012, a les 23:53:23, Antonis \
Tsiapaliokas<br> > > va><br>
> > escriure:<br>
> >> Hello,<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Attached, can somebody give it a try ?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Alex<br>
> >><br>
> >> I have test the attached patch with 2.8.8 cmake and it doesn't \
work.<br> > >> With the 2.8.9 cmake, the issues is solved, without the \
attached patch<br> > >> needed.<br>
> ><br>
> > So let's go for the cmake increase?<br>
> ><br>
> > Anyone against it? (I will need an answer before RC1 tag on tuesday \
night)<br></div></blockquote><div><br>I am all for it.<br><br>On a side note, I have \
never understood the objection against 2.8.9 before as that is what was also required \
for framework. Hence, it would somewhat lower the barrier for the framework \
contribution, too.<br> <br>IIRC, one of the main issues was the debian way, but it \
does not seem the case anymore: <a \
href="http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=names&keywords=cmake">http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=names&keywords=cmake</a><br>
<br>Laszlo <br></div></div>
_______________________________________________
Kde-buildsystem mailing list
Kde-buildsystem@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic