Updating CMake requirement to 2.8.12 RC 1

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Wednesday 21 August 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wednesday 21 August 2013 11:00:56 Giorgos Tsiapaliokas wrote:
> > On 20 August 2013 23:47, Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On 21 August 2013 09:40, Kevin Ottens <ervin+bluesystems at kde.org> wrote:
> > > The crux of the issue is:
> > > Is there anyone building kdelibs-frameworks and/or plasma-framework
> > > without
> > > using the kdesrc-build based procedure described on the wiki?
> > > http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Building
> > > 
> > > Because the proposed setup pulls cmake master anyway.
> > 
> > because we use kdesrc-build, this doesn't mean that all of us compile
> > cmake from sources.
> 
> That's the theory. I'm trying to gauge in practice what the actual people
> working on kdelibs-frameworks and plasma-framework are doing. If you follow
> the wiki page I referred to earlier you already build cmake from sources
> for the kf5 work.
> 
> Or did you mean that you're not using the kdesrc-build setup of that page?
> That'd actually be useful feedback for me in that discussion. I'm trying to
> get a sample set of who doesn't follow the content of the building page.
> 
> > > I think that he meant getting a wider tester base,
> > 
> > In KDE4, only released versions of the cmake are required and cmake is
> > working.
> > Why does this have to change in KF5?
> 
> In KDE4, only released versions of Qt are required and Qt is working.
> Why does this have to change in KF5? :-)

Maybe because it is necessary. (or isn't it ?)

You may have noticed that during all of KDE 4 we never ever needed to depend 
early on new cmake versions.
I do not see a reason why this has to change with KF5.
Seriously.

The work Stephen is doing on cmake is great, cool new features, he puts an 
unbeleavable amount of work and energy into this.
Nevertheless, I don't see how this makes it necessary for KF5 to follow the 
cmake releases so closely.
It can be done in a different way.
It requires more work by the buildsystem maintainer, but it saves so much time 
for all other developers.
Having an isolating layer there helps with that, but we are getting rid of 
that.

> The reasons are the same for both really, cmake and Qt are our two main
> upstreams. 

CMake wouldn't have to be considered a "main upstream". It should be 
considered just the build tool, which should attract as little attention as 
possible. It should just work silently in the background, so nobody is 
annoyed.

Alex