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

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] Boost vs cmake 2.8.8 vs kdepimlibs master
From:       Alexander Neundorf <neundorf () kde ! org>
Date:       2012-12-17 16:42:55
Message-ID: 201212171742.55415.neundorf () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 17 December 2012, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> 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.

Not really. For the frameworks branch the most current cmake is required, 
which is 2.8.10.1 currently.
We will stay there with the most current until we get somewhat stable.

Alex
_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]