Re: Should we consider project basenames unique?

[ashark]

> I have no idea why this is all of a sudden a problem for Arch Linux.In makepkg we do not have origin with project path (see comments in pkgbuild linked in https://invent.kde.org/sdk/releaseme/-/merge_requests/13). We have directory path to which the project was cloned, and it may (and man not) be named as project name. In pkgbuild I want to download and build translations for project, for that I use KDE_L10N_SYNC_TRANSLATIONS=ON. And then cmake module wants to call fetchpo.rb from releaseme. And as it was unable to detect project path (because origin is local path, not matching regex to extract it), it fallbacks to cmake project name: https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/extra-cmake-modules/-/blob/9f519983d628c7c2a68ee1a8dc7a1cbb83c8f535/kde-modules/KDECMakeSettings.cmake#L321. And currently fetchpo.rb fails to determine the project by that. I wanted to get rid of that function, and use directly cmake project name https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/extra-cmake-modules/-/merge_requests/199#note_339860. Then modification of releaseme is required (that I created mr 13 for). Can we use cmake_project_name as project identifiers? If yes, then I see it is no problem to add a from_identifier() to releaseme::project. And then the problem will be solved.24.11.2021, 13:02, "Ben Cooksley" :On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:28 PM Harald Sitter  wrote:On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 10:02 AM Ben Cooksley  wrote:
> Which means you either provide the path (plasma-mobile/plasma-dialer) or you need to go look in the metadata anyway.

If names are unique (not persistent, just unique) and plasma-dialer is
what I want to release then I know plasma-dialer is called
plasma-dialer because I'm a plasma-dialer dev. I can then call
releasme with the argument  'plasma-dialer' and releaseme can work out
the path from that because the name is global unique so there is only
one plasma-dialer and that will be what I want to release.In the specific case of releaseme for 99% of projects the situation you've described is true, so what you are talking about is a non-issue.There are only a small handful of projects where identifier != repository name, and the developers in charge of those projects should be able to handle that and be aware of the difference - usually because they requested it.I have no idea why this is all of a sudden a problem for Arch Linux.

HSRegards,Ben

KDE Builder: request for review

[ashark]

Hi all!

I've been working on KDE Builder project. This is a reimplementation of kdesrc-build in Python. At this point, the tool is rather mature, but some minor bugs may probably be unnoticed. I'd like to officially request a review of KDE Builder for declaring it official tool, and deprecating the kdesrc-build. That way we can move forward with new tool.

You can reach me on Matrix at @ashark:kde.org for more instant communications.

Re: KDE Builder: request for review

[Ashark]

> any feedback on that?

As I already said in previous message:

>> Regarding reviews, I am not against them. I just continue directly
>> committing changes that do not influence on the behavior, such as for
>> example, changes to follow pep8 rules and refactorings.

And, as I already said in chat, I agree that incompatible changes should be
discussed first.

In addition, I want to say that such changes are documented here:
https://kde-builder.kde.org/en/misc/changelog.html

Andrew.