Review Request 112545: Unify both meinproc5 binaries

[Aleix Pol Gonzalez]

> On Sept. 10, 2013, 6:46 a.m., David Faure wrote:
> > staging/kdoctools/src/meinproc.cpp, line 112
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112545/diff/1/?file=188443#file188443line112>
> >
> >     isn't it better to not define the option, so that the user gets "unknown option --cache"?
> >     
> >     Alternatively, further down, check for isSet("cache") and error out.

I don't know, maybe :)

Let's do this.


- Aleix


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112545/#review39690
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 9, 2013, 2:50 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112545/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 9, 2013, 2:50 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks and Albert Astals Cid.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Now we only have the one, which can be compiled without KArchive by ifdef'ing meinproc.cpp.
> 
> I'm unsure that KArchive it's that big of a dependency, to make it optional. Opinions?
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   staging/kdoctools/src/CMakeLists.txt 72bb06e 
>   staging/kdoctools/src/meinproc.cpp 5d476f6 
>   staging/kdoctools/src/meinproc_simple.cpp 334f13f 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112545/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Builds, both ways.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Aleix Pol Gonzalez
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20130910/23fa6b45/attachment.html>