building kio on Mac

Ben Cooksley bcooksley at
Mon Jun 8 08:20:19 BST 2015

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:13 PM, David Faure <faure at> wrote:
> That wasn't very constructive/positive...

Sorry, i've spent way too much time fighting with the Qt folks on this one.

> 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.

Thiago rejected that approach immediately when I suggested it over IRC.
He basically said it was XDG_* or nothing, and won't allow XDG_* to
proceed unless it is given the okay by the previously mentioned
unresponsive Digia employee.

As maintainer of QtCore he holds veto rights in this instance I believe.

> 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.

That makes sense.

>> , 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

Kde-buildsystem mailing list
Kde-buildsystem at

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list