[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-mac
Subject:    Re: [KDE/Mac] Developing KDE on Mac
From:       Mike McQuaid <mike () mikemcquaid ! com>
Date:       2010-08-13 15:01:34
Message-ID: 9A6F6FAC-5F56-49C3-93FE-94D16B688C4F () mikemcquaid ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On 13 Aug 2010, at 15:18, O wrote:
> Speaking as an ex-macports packager, I have to say it takes
> practically no extra effort to push patches upstream. I email them to
> a dev list and the developers either accept it or not. Therein lies
> the rub however. If the patch is "poor" it won't be accepted and
> unless I get help I'm not going to try to fix it as it works for me.
> "Extra effort" on my part would be learning (more of) a programming
> language on my time, which AFAIC is a no-go (some will, some won't).
> However, there are actual programmers who do use both
> kde-mac/fink/macports/homebrew.
> If they would take a look at the patches and fix the hacks the
> packagers put in (or work with them on fixing them) this seems
> something which would be worth doing. I'm just speaking personally on
> what would work for me though ...

That all sounds fair enough to me. The problem I have is that they don't get emailed \
to this list and that this list is practically dead. I'm also guilty of doing OSX \
things without telling anyone on the list, blogging about them or anything other than \
telling Till over Jabber.

> I'll hold my tongue.

Yes, point taken. However, it's much easier to get patches into KDE, they don't just \
get ignored on a bugtracker for years.

> I recommended the package manager to a relatively techie windows
> friend of mine to install amarok. He never got it working. If it's not
> using the native installer framework of the system (or something far
> better/intuitive) I think it's going to fail.

I'm not surprised. 

> > I think a reasonable intermediate step would be to have a DMG which installed the \
> > basic dependencies for KDE applications (e.g. D-Bus, Qt, KDELibs, KDESupport) and \
> > then .app bundles for individual applications.
> Which is a > 1 man job.

Certainly a >1 man in his spare time job. If anyone had paid me, this would be done. \
There's growing talk that this could happen.

> As of Camp KDE 2009 the instructions on using CPack for Mac OS X,
> whether in book form, or online documentation sucked (which is to say
> I couldn't find out how to make it do what I wanted it to do on the
> mac). Has this improved?
> 
> What I was attempting btw was
> 1. Compile program A.
> 2. Have certain files from program A relocated within the .app bundle
> 3. Make pkg.
> 
> #2 proved problematic.
> 
> Now while I believe it is possible, as others have claimed to do it, I
> have yet to see step by step instructions on how to do so.

CPack = awesome software, terrible, terrible documentation.

The best example, in my humble opinion, of doing this nicely now is actually looking \
at the code of other projects doing it. For example, Charm, a project we have at \
work, which is on gitorious. I've just added all the CPack support for Mac and \
Windows and added automatic compile-time dependency resolution.

Check the code out here:
http://gitorious.org/charm/charm/blobs/master/CMakeLists.txt#line131
http://gitorious.org/charm/charm/blobs/master/Charm/CMakeLists.txt#line178

I'm also fairly familiar with the CPack codebase and have a good handle of what it is \
and isn't capable of so feel free to ask me about this stuff.

--
Cheers,
Mike McQuaid
http://mikemcquaid.com

_______________________________________________
kde-mac@kde.org
List Information: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-mac
KDE/Mac Information: http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Projects/KDE_on_Mac_OS_X


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]