Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-10-18 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 06 May 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Sunday 06 May 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > attached are prototypes. > > > > > > Please have a look (ignore the version-related stuff for now). > > > > > > The Use-file is not there anymore, and the Config.cmak

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-06 Thread Stephen Kelly
Stephen Kelly wrote: > If it is, then I'd resubmit my proposal to have: > > include(ItemModelsConfigCommon.cmake) > > inside ItemModelsConfig.cmake, and generate it in the CMakeLists.txt And by the way I also think we've covered all the discussion points needed in this thread and it's time to

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-06 Thread Stephen Kelly
Alexander Neundorf wrote: > URL and DESCRIPTION belong to the used project, so they are candidates for > being set in the Config.cmake file. > But there are two downsides of setting them in the Config file: > - the information where to get the package is not present when the package > is not presen

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 06 May 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> kf5_do_common_stuff() # TODO: Get better name > > > > Where should this macro come from ? > > Should this be expanded from @PACKAGE_INIT@ or from an included file ? > > From an included file would be bad, this would add c

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-06 Thread Stephen Kelly
Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> kf5_do_common_stuff() # TODO: Get better name > > Where should this macro come from ? > Should this be expanded from @PACKAGE_INIT@ or from an included file ? > From an included file would be bad, this would add compatibility issues > for the included file. You mean i

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 06 May 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> >> Why do we need a use file? Qt 5 doesn't create or install them. > >> > > >> > You added it, so I thought you want to have it. > >> > If not, let's remove it. > >> > >> Yes. > > > > Ok. I'll remove them in the next da

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-06 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Sunday 06 May 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > attached are prototypes. > > > > Please have a look (ignore the version-related stuff for now). > > > > The Use-file is not there anymore, and the Config.cmake.in file is not > > there anymore. > > Instead it is now gener

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-05 Thread Stephen Kelly
Alexander Neundorf wrote: > attached are prototypes. > > Please have a look (ignore the version-related stuff for now). > > The Use-file is not there anymore, and the Config.cmake.in file is not > there anymore. > Instead it is now generated using the new function > ecm_write_basic_package_config

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-05 Thread Stephen Kelly
Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> >> Why do we need a use file? Qt 5 doesn't create or install them. >> > >> > You added it, so I thought you want to have it. >> > If not, let's remove it. >> >> Yes. > > Ok. I'll remove them in the next days. > Are they used anywhere already ? Thanks. Nope they're n

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-03 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Wednesday 02 May 2012, Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... > I'm not at all against making Config.cmake files easier to create. But it > should not make it in any way harder to add project-specific information to > them (which IMO already happens if you end up with a somewhat working > version without

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-02 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 01 May 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > >> > This IMO easily qualifies as "magic" most developers will not > >> > understand, they will not know where these files come from, what they > >> > are good for, what they should contain. > >> > > >> > By having the > >>

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-01 Thread Stephen Kelly
Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> > This IMO easily qualifies as "magic" most developers will not >> > understand, they will not know where these files come from, what they >> > are good for, what they should contain. >> > >> > By having the >> > write_basic_package_version_file() >> > configure_packag

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-05-01 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 30 April 2012, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > Hi, > > > > attached is a patch for kdelibs/tier1/itemmodels/. > > > > It removes the usage of ECMQtFramework.cmake and uses instead the (new) > > cmake features directly. > > > > The biggest difference is that itemmod

Re: Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-04-30 Thread Stephen Kelly
Alexander Neundorf wrote: > Hi, > > attached is a patch for kdelibs/tier1/itemmodels/. > > It removes the usage of ECMQtFramework.cmake and uses instead the (new) > cmake features directly. > > The biggest difference is that itemmodels_version.h.in, > itemmodelsConfig.cmake.in and itemmodelsUseF

Modified build system for itemmodels

2012-04-29 Thread Alexander Neundorf
Hi, attached is a patch for kdelibs/tier1/itemmodels/. It removes the usage of ECMQtFramework.cmake and uses instead the (new) cmake features directly. The biggest difference is that itemmodels_version.h.in, itemmodelsConfig.cmake.in and itemmodelsUseFile.cmake.in are now part of itemmodels a