Review Request 116079: Be more explicit with QFile include

[Alex Merry]

> On Feb. 26, 2014, 3:36 p.m., Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> > My memory may be failing me, but I think it was actually decided to go the other way around for Qt5 includes: not prepending the module dir. Can anyone else confirm? This should be mentioned in the framework policies, I think.
> 
> Alex Merry wrote:
>     Yeah, the conclusion was that using module names in includes caused more trouble than it was worth.
>     
>     We're generally assuming that downstreams will use either qmake or CMake; this shouldn't be an issue with either.

Although: see http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2014-February/012052.html


- Alex


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116079/#review50945
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 26, 2014, 11:19 a.m., Michael Palimaka wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116079/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 26, 2014, 11:19 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks and David Faure.
> 
> 
> Repository: kio
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> global.h is a public header, so not being more explicit with includes could cause a build failure for consumers. This should probably go into kdelibs too.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/core/global.h 7814a52c9656719d301ebd012434a53491ffe159 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/116079/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Builds.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael Palimaka
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20140226/378582cd/attachment.html>