[KDE/Mac] Building Guide? ;)

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Monday October 05 2015 22:32:23 Ian Wadham wrote:

>Too bad, I was just hoping to put all that shared KF5 stuff tidily away
>in a place where it belongs and is provided for, in the OS X architecture,
>as opposed to putting it in an area that is intended for apps acting alone,
>as QSP would do if we leave it unpatched.

Frankly, I think that the "place where it belongs" is either what unpatched QSP  tells us (which goes with standalone app bundles that contain everything from Qt they need and only that "inside" and sandbox all "shared" resources). Or else something akin to what we do with Qt4/KDE4 in MacPorts (itself akin to what's done on Linux and other Freedesktop systems like PC-BSD).

Putting everything in 1 or 2 huge meta framework bundles is nifty, but only makes sense if you expect that people might be interested in its only true advantage that I can see: moving it to the place of choice, or simply install KF5 as a basic user into ~/Library/Frameworks.
Thing is:
- the build system isn't designed to allow resolving link dependencies with a simple -framework Qt5 -framework KF5 (and letting the linker figure out which "sub frameworks" are actually required). (NB: that would be another advantage, otherwise.)
- you'd have to do the same with Qt4/KDE4 as long as there are still KDE4 applications that don't have KF5 successors
- what about all dependencies? If you still have to install MacPorts to satisfy them, what is the advantage of installing Qt5 and/or KF5 elsewhere?
- in this light, Qt5 and KF5 installed as shared resources under /opt/local isn't any different from installing them in ~/Library/Frameworks/{Qt5,KF5}.framework . 

>I had no thought of any KF5 or KDE 4 app being a candidate for the App
>Store --- not even my games.

Neither do I - I cannot imagine anyone wanting to pay Apple for the "honour" to distribute free software ...
But apparently "core KDE" developers think different (pun intended ;))

Cheers,
R.