Review Request 114182: Add Kf5 prefix for libs, eg. libKf5Foo

[Kevin Ottens]

> On Nov. 28, 2013, 3:43 p.m., Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > Looks fine to me. Makes me wonder if we want to drop the K for the target name "KF5::ConfigCore"? Just like Qt5Widgets becomes Qt5::Widgets...
> 
> Martin Klapetek wrote:
>     Can do. Imho it makes sense but I'll wait for some other opinions so I don't have to redo/undo all of it then. Will try to still do it by tonight.
> 
> Martin Klapetek wrote:
>     No comments on dropping the K? I'm about to do this...
> 
> Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>     +1
> 
> Martin Klapetek wrote:
>     While working on it, I realized that it may not be so good to drop the K from target name after all...unless we change the package names too, otherwise we'd be finding package KConfig and linking to KF5::Config, plus all the classes are named KConfig*...so the library in target_link_libs would be quite inconsistent with the rest.
>     
>     Please advise.
> 
> Alex Merry wrote:
>     If we want to follow Qt's example, we would rename the package KF5Config, and leave the classes as KConfig*.  This is a fairly substantial naming change to the packages, though, especially as the consistent thing would be to have KF5Solid and KF5ThreadWeaver, for example.
>     
>     Which I'm generally in favour of, actually.  I'm especially dubious about the names of the ItemModels and ItemViews packages, which are really quite generic.
> 
> Kevin Ottens wrote:
>     Yep, ItemModels and ItemViews would definitely benefit from being prefixed. XmlGui as well... Overall it looks more and more like welcome consistency to me.
> 
> Martin Klapetek wrote:
>     Ok, so to reiterate:
>     
>     lib names -> libKF5Archive, libKF5Config etc (capital F)
>     target names -> KF5::Archive, KF5::Config
>     package names -> KF5Archive, KF5Config
>     
>     correct?

Works for me if no one has any problem with it.


- Kevin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114182/#review44703
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 28, 2013, 1:46 p.m., Martin Klapetek wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114182/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 28, 2013, 1:46 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks.
> 
> 
> Repository: kdelibs
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This is just one framework - KConfig - if this is the proper way to do this, I'll update this review with all frameworks updated to this.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   tier1/kconfig/autotests/CMakeLists.txt cc2626b 
>   tier1/kconfig/src/core/CMakeLists.txt c8a4842 
>   tier1/kconfig/src/gui/CMakeLists.txt b677d03 
>   tier1/kconfig/src/kconf_update/CMakeLists.txt 69668bc 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114182/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Builds.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin Klapetek
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20131129/cc0717a5/attachment.html>