Moving KWayland to frameworks

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:24:06 PM CET Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > As I just said: I consider this as a useless exercise and a waste of my
> > time (and of anybody else who would do that).
> 
> Note that it's a waste of time which could have been easily avoided. If the
> goal was to get something like KWayland in, the white listed constructs were
> known and documented.

KWayland originated from KWin which already used full C++11 support at that 
time. The aim was to use it in other parts of workspace at that time. Moving 
into frameworks was not a direct aim at that time. It's something which showed 
up as possibly useful only later on.

> By choosing a more liberal approach it was
> necessarily creating a price to pay later on (the useless exercise, or
> bumping requirements for everyone reducing user base, or opening the door
> to exceptions and reducing the readability of our offer).
> 
> > If we cannot have an exception I think I'll leave KWayland in
> > kde-workspace.
> As you wish.
> 
> > > Alternatively, we could bump the compiler requirements globally for KF5
> > > again. But I think it's too early for that, I'd wait for Qt 5.7 to be
> > > out
> > > (since they'll move their baseline as well at that point anyway).
> > 
> > Well it doesn't need to be a global bump of compiler requirements.
> 
> It doesn't need to indeed. Still, exceptions are my least favorite price to
> pay in the list above (second least favorite to me is bumping requirements).
> 
> To make it clear: my opinion is that anything which reduces our user base or
> might make our offer harder to read and understand should be considered
> last.

understood.

> > But we could consider different compiler requirements for frameworks which
> > are non-portable. KWayland will never be built on Windows neither on OSX.
> > So any compiler restrictions on it just shouldn't matter.
> 
> Bumping gcc requirements also has an impact on embedded platforms which tend
> to have older gcc. It's clearly one of the main nest of users for KWayland
> IMHO. I'm not sure what older gcc they tend to run with on the platforms
> supporting wayland but that's still something to consider (especially since
> wayland itself is not very demanding on the compiler as you pointed out).

In my opinion it's not realistic to restrict the gcc compiler requirement 
anyway. We don't have CI coverage for it, so we never know whether it actually 
would compile. My linux distribution doesn't provide gcc < 4.8 anymore, I 
wouldn't know how to ensure that the code actually works. This makes it in my 
opinion unrealistic that I try to restrict the compiler requirement again.

Anyway, I don't see that I have time to rewind the C++11 usage. As we cannot 
increase the compiler requirement we probably have to keep KWayland in kde/
workspace and retry once frameworks increases the requirements. Fine with me. 
It makes our lifes a little bit harder, especially for plasma-frameworks, but 
we will be able to manage that.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151210/a3053263/attachment.sig>