CMake config & target challenges on moving to KF5 namespace; dir structure & API dox (Re: Submitting Grantlee as a KF5 Framework)

[Stephen Kelly]

On 21/12/2019 21:33, Volker Krause wrote:
> * Attracting external components and having them opt to move under the
> Frameworks umbrella is a sign that we are doing things right IMHO. So let's
> make this easy for people and avoid scaring off their users by forcing a
> larger migration on them when joining Frameworks.


I definitely want to keep things as they are. Grantlee has lots of 
users. The mutual advantages of making Grantlee a KF5 Framework without 
changing how it's used in CMake (aside from a few minor details like the 
fact of the ECM dependency) are what makes KF5 attractive.


> * We are less than two years away from KF6, a time where people expect to have
> to do a larger migration anyway. Deferring some of the necessary changes to
> then might be a compromise that works for now.


This seems like the right way to me. Let's make the fundamental changes 
for KF6. The timing of KF6 and the introduction of Grantlee to KF5 are 
favorable to that.


Another option is to skip KF5 and make Grantlee a KF6 frameworks 
whenever that opens.


> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Volker
>
> PS: @Steve: I missed the doxygen discussion on IRC earlier, customizing
> doxygen is possible via docs/Doxyfile.local, which just gets appended to the
> Doxyfile from kapidox IIUC, maybe that helps already?


Cool, I'll look into it.

Thanks,

Stephen.