[karchive] /: Show how qmake integration can be done.

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Sunday 05 January 2014, you wrote:
> On Sunday 05 January 2014 18:59:58 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 January 2014, you wrote:
> > > On Sunday 05 January 2014 18:41:18 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 04 January 2014, you wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 04 January 2014 22:25:36 David Faure wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday 04 January 2014 22:19:29 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > > > >  ecm_generate_pri_file(KF5KIOCore BASE_NAME KIOCore
> > > > > > > >  VARIABLE_PREFIX KIO
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > DEPS "KCoreAddons KService")
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think so.
> > > > > > > I'd be even more explicit and add something like "FILE
> > > > > > > KF5KIOCore.pri",
> > > > > > > then  it's clear to the reader what is generated ("FILE" is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > used this way in install(EXPORT ... ) ).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The first argument is the target name (so I didn't prefix it,
> > > > > > which is consistent with most other commands that take a target
> > > > > > name first).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's not used for the filename (that's qt_KIOCore.pri, i.e. it
> > > > > > comes from
> > > > > > BASE_NAME) but to write out the name of the library into the
> > > > > > file.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah.
> > > > Is BASE_NAME also used for something else, or just that ?
> > > 
> > > It's also used as the name of the thing to include, i.e. QT += KIOCore.
> > > 
> > > > I'd make it "FILENAME ${MaybeSomeDir}/qt_KIOCore.pri" then, and error
> > > > out
> > > > if the given filename doesn't match "qt_.+\.pri/" or something like
> > > > that. This is done the same way for the FOUND_VAR argument in
> > > > find_package_handle_standard_args().
> > > > It's a bit more typing, but it's easy to read and with such a check
> > > > hard to get wrong.
> > > 
> > > I think the filename is actually an implementation detail.
> > 
> > Well, later on the generated filename must be used in an install(FILES
> > ...) call, right ?
> > IMO it's nice to see where that filename used there comes from.
> 
> Oh! You're right. OK then I'll do that.
> 
> The alternative would be the set the filename in some "output variable", to
> hide this detail in the implementation of the function. Wouldn't that be
> better?

That's also ok.

> 
> > > Any comments on my framework_version.diff patch from earlier today?
> > 
> > What was the subject ?
> 
> Same thread as this one, same subject. Today 11:09 CET.

I'll have a look.

Alex