[KDE/Mac] [OS X] adding a link module to all KF5 targets

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Wednesday October 14 2015 22:12:31 Christoph Cullmann wrote:

> isn't this really all going in the completely wrong direction?

No. Pragmatism may not be the best but is never the wrong direction.
Skip back and note how I accepted the idea of local patching of toplevel CMake files to build KF5 software in what one should probably call QSP compatibility mode.

> I thought we want to have frameworks that work as native on the different operating systems as qt.
(to take this literally, that's exactly what will be the case, with or without my patch.)

Define we?

I'm not going to get into this discussion with you again, AFAIC we just have to agree to disagree (for now) and ensure everyone gets what they want.

There is nothing in the OS X specifications that says where shared resources *must* be (such strict rules apply only to items to be submitted to the App Store). Applications will however almost always be built like app bundles, but those are not obligatory standalone affairs. 

If we had gotten a QSP patch like this working *months* ago (possibly even included into Qt) we might now have been in a situation with working applications ready to convert/adapt to native locations.

> And we need then to decide which KDE applications make sense on Mac

I think "we" Mac users are perfectly capable to decide that for ourselves, and don't need people to do it for us who not so long ago (gave the impression they) couldn't care less about the cross-platform aspect KDE inherited by choosing Qt.
It's fine with me if some sort of official KDE workgroup decides which applications are going to be made available as shiny clickable items in the App Store or via dmgs on some official server. As long as it doesn't interfere with the approach currently used to provide KDE4 via MacPorts and that allows me to exchange KDE settings between Mac and Linux desktops.

> I am already quiet annoyed to see we actually can turn on X11 on Mac, Qt's own X11 backend is not available
> per default anyway, which sense makes that?

Qt's X11 backend builds just fine except for a few details that should be easy enough to address.

Choice is good but if it annoys you, just look the other way (and do it quietly, as you already suggested by accident :P). I do the same with dogma.
(Or get yourself a Winbox, it's a bit harder to "turn on X11" there...)

OS X is a Unix with what used to be a great desktop environment. The presence of which doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to use it as a more common Unix workstation, or avoid wasting disk space by using shared libraries and resources the way they're intended to, if that's what they want. That's probably also the chief and major audience for MacPorts, Fink and family.

R.