D19383: remove kpackage_install_package deprecation warning

[Harald Sitter]

sitter created this revision.
sitter added a reviewer: mart.
Herald added a project: Frameworks.
Herald added a subscriber: kde-frameworks-devel.
sitter requested review of this revision.

REVISION SUMMARY
  an ad-hoc discussion on #plasma-devel suggests the science isn't quite in
  on whether RCCs are in fact always better.
  on the one hand simple profiling suggested for plasma use cases it may be
  ever so slightly faster in cold boot scenario. on the other hand the
  actual rcc code supposedly is fairly inefficient in how it access the
  disk and manages memory.
  
  this currently puts us in a situation where rcc and !rcc may be viable
  depending on the specific scenario of a package. (depending on disk type,
  size of rcc, loading, ram constraints, operating system).
  
  if someone wants to see rcc be default it's likely that improvements need
  to be made to Qt first. in any event actually getting some solid profiling
  before deprecation would be greatly appreciated. is rcc always better?
  why is it better? if it isn't always, what are the criteria that make it
  preferred over flat files? does the disk type (rotating/!rotating) matter?
  etc. etc.

TEST PLAN
  - cmake && make pass
  - plasma-pa no longer raises deprecation warnings

REPOSITORY
  R290 KPackage

BRANCH
  no-deprecate

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D19383

AFFECTED FILES
  KF5PackageMacros.cmake

To: sitter, mart
Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20190227/c2054306/attachment.html>