Review Request 120393: [kdelibs4support] Kill dead code

[Vishesh Handa]

> On March 18, 2015, 11:23 p.m., Vishesh Handa wrote:
> > I'm all for getting rid of the Nepomuk code. However, I'm not too sure about the strigi part. That should still work.
> 
> Hrvoje Senjan wrote:
>     It does not ;-)
>     Originally, this review added back the find_package(Strigi) call which was removed a while back (at least before 5.0.0), so this code was/is never compiled.
> 
> Vishesh Handa wrote:
>     I still cannot give it a ship it.
>     
>     
>     We need to collectively decide if we want to let the Strigi integration be broken and remove the code. Or add the dependency again and see why it doesn't work.
> 
> Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>     Agreeing with Vishesh here, can you send a new email to kde-core-devel mailing list mentioning what should we do, if stop supporting strigi or not in kdelibs4support? This way we can get a more project wide discussion about it.
> 
> Hrvoje Senjan wrote:
>     Maybe there was a misunderstanding - i do not know do strigi related code works if compiled - problem was/is they where never compiled since, and before 5.0.0.
>     Anyway, i'll compose a k-c-d mail laters...

Ping.

If you can split up just the Nepomuk parts, it's a ship it from me.


- Vishesh


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120393/#review77714
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 18, 2015, 6:24 p.m., Hrvoje Senjan wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120393/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 18, 2015, 6:24 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks, David Faure and Vishesh Handa.
> 
> 
> Repository: kdelibs4support
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Strigi check has been removed in commit c8f4c69650c71276b2a2263212addde63764e58b, and soprano wasn't even ported to Qt5 (afaik), so this was never compiled.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   autotests/kfilemetainfotest.cpp c751cdd 
>   src/CMakeLists.txt b662893 
>   src/config-kdelibs4support.h.cmake 1af3ee0 
>   src/kio/kfilemetadataconfigurationwidget.cpp 259b205 
>   src/kio/kfilemetadataprovider.cpp 3468546 
>   src/kio/kfilemetadataprovider_p.h 31137b2 
>   src/kio/kfilemetadatawidget.cpp 1edb069 
>   src/kio/kfilemetainfo.cpp eae1295 
>   src/kio/kfilemetainfoitem.cpp 62f760d 
>   src/kio/kfilemetainfoitem_p.h 8929e46 
>   src/kio/knfotranslator.cpp 8eec6a1 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/120393/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hrvoje Senjan
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20150403/7f992f8f/attachment.html>