building kio on Mac

David Faure faure at
Mon Jun 8 08:13:44 BST 2015

That wasn't very constructive/positive...

On Monday 08 June 2015 15:22:20 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> The Qt developers
> didn't want to provide any infrastructure at all to make developer
> environments (including our CI system) easier. 

The *any* here is too broad. One approach was rejected, there are tons of 
others. E.g. just naming the variables QT_ instead of XDG_ might have been 
less controversial.
But since everyone was saying, at the same time, that end users don't want env 
vars, I can understand that the Qt developers thought this issue needs more 
thinking, to solve all uses cases, not just "KDE CI" (which was a too 
restrictive line of argumentation compared to what it really was, "developer 
setup", as you say).

> The maintainer(s) of
> the QStandardPaths class never reviewed our patch

That would be me, and since I don't know how things should work on OSX, I am 
not in a good position to decide. On top of that I come from the KDE world, so 
I can't really force a KDE patch into Qt if it's a bit controversial.

> , and the module
> maintainer for QtCore wanted the opinion of a Digia employee who was
> extremely unresponsive.

David Faure, faure at,
Working on KDE Frameworks 5

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list