KDE/kdevelop [POSSIBLY UNSAFE]

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 24.04.07 20:33:20, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 24.04.07 00:50:33, David Nolden wrote:
> > On Monday 23 April 2007 21:55:55 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > > As I suspected this doesn't work on windows easily, so we definetly need
> > > to replace this.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > 
> > http://www.hyperrealm.com/commoncpp/commoncpp-faq.html says 
> > "Current platform support includes Mac OS X, POSIX systems such as GNU/Linux 
> > and Solaris, and Microsoft Windows (2000 and later).", are you sure? And 
> > don't you confuse it with GNU Common C++?(as seen in the faq).
> 
> :( Unfortunately that library also uses autotools, which is a PITA to
> get to work on windows - AFAIK. Unfortunately the am2cmake script from
> kdesdk doesn't work with that project either. I guess we have to convert
> to Qt at least those parts.
> 
> David: Can you do us a favor (if you don't have the time to do it), can
> you point us at the files that use commonc++?

I tried to make the cmake stuff work a bit better, removing static libs
(those don't work on windows, AFAIK) and making them shared libs, fixing
boost and commonc++ finding and adding include_directories instead of
directly including files from other subdirs. 

So far my impression is not that good, there seem to be many unessecary
include's, it doesn't compile (strange erros in stl-headers, I guess
some conflict between boost, commonc++ and stl) and it produces lots of
warning (before I tried to clean the cmake files). 

I seriously start to think this should move back into a branch until its
more mature.

Sorry David, I know you put a lot of work into this and its definetly
something that would be cool to have in KDevelop, but I just don't see
how somebody dives into this codebase when you don't have time anymore.
And new plugins are supposed to be easily installable, so I don't see a
problem if kdevelop doesn't ship teamwork out-of-the-box.

Andreas

-- 
If you think last Tuesday was a drag, wait till you see what happens tomorrow!