[KDE/Mac] Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks
mk-lists at mailbox.org
Thu Oct 22 16:48:30 UTC 2015
On 22 Oct 2015, at 08:35 , Ralf Habacker <ralf at habacker.de> wrote:
> umbrello for example depends on about 50 other libraries and packages
> Not patching Qt requires to repack every single package :-(, by either
> hacking the cmake build system to use different install locations or to
> reorder the installed files after cmake installing.
> Having Qt support for "standard linux path layout" for example by
> extending qt.conf to support QStandardPath (qt.conf is already required
> for KDE on Windows) shortcuts this repackaging need completely.
have you followed the discussion with Qt's developers regarding the QSP patch ?
If not, I advise you to do a little reading there!
Qt won’t ever support such an approach, i.e. one would have to patch it, if KDE itself doesn’t
come with its own provisions for this...
If every single KDE application wants to be self-contained - to be more easily distributable -
then that’s fine, especially for bigger apps like KMail, DigiKam, Marble, KDEnlive… This would
perhaps even make a distribution via the App Store possible. ;-)
However, if one wants to avoid all the duplication of libs to be shipped, then one better uses
a package management system like MacPorts, Homebrew, Fink on OSX and who knows what on Windows.
This however will require extra efforts for those systems, if KDE doesn’t somehow envisions such
distribution mechanisms for non-Linux distros.
Wondering where things are heading to now...
I think it’s great, that this thread(s) started a discussion about this pressing topic.
Could it be, that we have to introduce a QSP patch in MacPorts’ qt5-mac to revert back to the
Linuxy way of XDG paths?
More information about the kde-mac