Herald edited subscribers, added: kde-buildsystem, kde-frameworks-devel;
removed: Frameworks, Build System.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736
To: shaheed, lbeltrame
Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, kde-buildsystem, rokejulianlockhart, jasontibbit
jasontibbitts added a comment.
Thanks for the update; I'll follow the bindings list and work on getting
cppyy into Fedora. Hopefully that will be relatively uncomplicated.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736
To: shaheed, lbeltrame
Cc: j
shaheed added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736#154948, @jasontibbitts wrote:
> I hate to add a ping without any useful review, but I'm quite interested in
this effort as I have a pykde4-based application which I would really like to
get ported to the modern frameworks. Cu
jasontibbitts added a comment.
I hate to add a ping without any useful review, but I'm quite interested in
this effort as I have a pykde4-based application which I would really like to
get ported to the modern frameworks. Current distro packages of pykde4 are
increasingly broken, and covera
shaheed added a comment.
My suggestion would be to focus any review efforts in this order:
1. files in the top level directory.
2. possibly files the ./templates subdirectory.
3. __init__.py and CMakelists.txt in the ./PyKF5 subdirectory. Ignore all
other files therein.
REPOSITORY
shaheed added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> lbeltrame wrote in CMakeLists.txt:49
> Don't use `find_package(FOO REQUIRED)`. Use `find_package(FOO)` then
> `set_package_properties(FOO TYPE REQUIRED...`. There are many examples in KDE
> git you can use. You will need to include FeatureSummary
shaheed added a comment.
My comments here are phrased as if this SIP-based approach was the solution
eventually adopted (cppyy might be different). With that said...
This...
> (this thing is huge).
and this...
> One question: would it be possible to have the bindings per-fr
lbeltrame added a comment.
A small number of reviews (this thing is huge). One question: would it be
possible to have the bindings per-framework, rather than a single, long list?
This is also what made PyKDE4 unwieldy. IOW, each Framework should ship their
(optional) bindings.
We can put
shaheed edited the summary of this revision.
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736
To: shaheed, lbeltrame
Cc: #frameworks, #build_system
shaheed retitled this revision from "Not-to-be-merged review fo Python bindings
generator" to "Not-to-be-merged review of Python bindings generator".
REPOSITORY
R240 Extra CMake Modules
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D7736
To: shaheed, lbeltrame
Cc: #frameworks, #build_system
10 matches
Mail list logo
