Review Request 125725: Make KCrash optional for kservice

[David Faure]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125725/#review87249
-----------------------------------------------------------


For the record, I would have approved this. This is really just extra rarely-needed safety, because nowadays the apps themselves rebuild sycoca directly, so the use of kcrash here is really just for the corner case of "all my apps crash because of ksycoca being corrupted" and then you try to run kbuildsycoca to repair that, it crashes - and the crash handler deletes the bad file. Corner case, because you could have use --noincremental instead, or just deleted the cache by hand.

- David Faure


On Oct. 20, 2015, 2 p.m., Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125725/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Oct. 20, 2015, 2 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for KDE Frameworks and David Faure.
> 
> 
> Repository: kservice
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> kservice depends on KCrash only for kbuildsycoca.
> make this optional and link only against it, if around. Move check to kbuildsyscoca file.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   CMakeLists.txt 4c0f269 
>   src/kbuildsycoca/CMakeLists.txt 19bdc84 
>   src/kbuildsycoca/kbuildsycoca_main.cpp 03619cc 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/125725/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Seems to compile fine without it.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Christoph Cullmann
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151022/739ce460/attachment.html>