Getting ecm files from the ECM package

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> On Sunday 10 November 2013 16:27:06 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > To build karchive itself, they would need cmake + tier0-kf5 + ECM
> > > > 
> > > > Which is exactly what I want to avoid.
> > > > 
> > > > You wrote "To build software using karchive with cmake, they still
> > > > need only cmake." but this requires karchive to be installed first.
> > > > On a linux
> > > > distro, no problem. But on Windows, they will have to build karchive
> > > > themselves (unless we make binary packages, which I heavily doubt we
> > > > will
> > > > do). So the problem is real. I do NOT want to have to tell people
> > > > "install 3 build- system components before you can even build this
> > > > very simple library".
> > > 
> > > I guess the 3 buildsystem components would be cmake, ecm and tier0 ?
> > > 
> > > I understand that this sounds like a lot when starting from scratch.
> > > As I said in some other thread, I was hoping that ecm would become so
> > > common, especially since I wanted it to be not bound to KDE, that it
> > > would anyway already be on the machine of a developer who uses cmake.
> > > This would leave only the tier0 package to be installed for the
> > > average developer using cmake.
> > 
> > and, as Kevin suggested, maybe ecm could be integrated via git submodules
> > into this tier0 package, so for the user it would be only one thing.
> 
> Actually I was more thinking about injecting this tier0 into each of the
> frameworks using a git submodule, so that ecm could be a regular dependency
> as originally planned...

yes, there are several ways how this could be done.

> Now I guess we could do it for both, but it looks tricky for something
> which would have a separate release cycle like ECM. While for the tier0
> the release cycle would be tied to the rest.

Personally I would have said that either this tier0 or all of KF5 should 
require some specific, released version of ECM, so that this version could be 
pulled from a branch (if this is where you see the problem).

Alex