Getting ecm files from the ECM package

[Kevin Ottens]

On Friday 01 November 2013 13:37:56 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Friday 01 November 2013 12:53:17 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Friday 01 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > On Friday 01 November 2013 11:23:14 Mirko Boehm wrote:
> > > > On 11/01/2013 10:46 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > [1] Why not merge that into CMake ? For quicker releases, and even
> > > > > easier contributing. Also Bill once said that in hindsight he would
> > > > > have prefered if cmake would not ship any find-modules itself at
> > > > > all.
> > > > > So one could imagine that cmake would come without any find-modules
> > > > > in
> > > > > the future, and all find-modules would come from a separate package,
> > > > > e.g. ECM. This would make cmake the core tool, and ECM its "standard
> > > > > library"
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that a separation of CMake and the find_modules make sense.
> > > > But.
> > > 
> > > My position indeed. I would agree at a "tier 0" if it didn't make it
> > > miserable for third parties wanting to use a tier 1 library in the sense
> > > of "oh by the way you also need that, and that, and that thing no one
> > > else
> > > use".
> > 
> > if a package foo uses ecm (or that non existing tier0 cmake package)
> > itself, this does not mean that another package which uses foo, also
> > needs ecm (or that tier0 package) at buildtime.
> 
> Well, if the tier 0 package contains the compiler settings for our
> frameworks, it'd mean everything tier 1 and up would use it. The
> alternatives right now being: duplicate the info or have it in cmake/ecm.

Although overall I like the feature Mirko is proposing. I figured out 
something regarding that statement of mine just above... For the specific case 
at hand, assuming we'd have a tier 0[*] and we don't want third parties to 
bother about it either while cloning the repo or while getting a tarball...

Might be a stupid idea but... isn't it something we could inject using git 
submodules? It looks like a proper tool for the task.

Opinions on that?
 
Cheers.

[*] I'm not against that idea per se (never been), I see the value in it. But 
if we go for it I want to make sure it's transparent for third parties.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20131101/6e5ed869/attachment.sig>