Broken categories in our templates or kapptemplate?

[Andreas Pakulat]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Aleix Pol <aleixpol at kde.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Aleix Pol <aleixpol at kde.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Aleix Pol <aleixpol at kde.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was just trying to create a new Qt/C++ CMake project but was kinda
>>>>>> confused by the categories presented to me. The left-most list was:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Python, Ruby, C++, KDE, Standard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Naturally I chose C++ but that only has KDE (i.e. real KDE stuff, like
>>>>>> plasma, KApplication etc.) and and qmake templates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I then checked Standard and KDE since the other two categories are
>>>>>> clearly not what I want. Standard has only a C++/Terminal with CMake.
>>>>>> Interestingly the KDE entry does not have a single KDE-related
>>>>>> template, all of the three are CMake/C++ Qt templates - one for tests,
>>>>>> one for gui and one for non-gui apps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now before I whip up a bugreport:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this categorization intentional as outlined above?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should the categories in KDevelop or kapptemplate be changed? (I'd
>>>>>> personally fix the kdevelop templates to use the language as first
>>>>>> option too)
>>>>>>
>>>>> What KDE SDK version do you have? this changed some time ago...
>>>>
>>>> Interesting, still 4.7.4, thought I updated to 4.8 on that machine already...
>>>>
>>>>> The reasoning behind was that it's more clear to have what you're
>>>>> trying to achieve in the topmost level so that you can get all the
>>>>> options on how to do it in the end.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so intended is to have KDE and Standard as top-levels? If so, our
>>>> templates are incorrectly categorized still IMO. After all a
>>>> QtCore-CMake-C++ template has absolutely nothing to do with "KDE".
>>>> Those would better be in a Qt category I think.
>>>
>>> Maybe so.
>>>
>>> Qt wasn't split because when this change was done there was a lot of
>>> the frameworks decisions going on. I think that what we should end up
>>> having is only Qt for applications and KDE for backends stuff, like
>>> KIO. Or not.
>>
>> I think I'm missing something here. Can you please look at
>> kdevelop/app_templates and tell me why those 3 rather simple
>> application templates are in a KDE category? I don't see how this has
>> anything to do with frameworks, even if we fast-forward a year when
>> frameworks are actually released those three templates are still plain
>> Qt templates that having nothing to do with KDE (or frameworks).
>> kapptemplate ships all the KDE-libraries using templates and I totally
>> agree that those should be in a KDE category.
>
> Well... there's been a lot of discussions about what is a KDE
> application and what isn't. That's what I meant.

Uhm, by definition a KDE application is an application that uses
something from KDE, in turn this means an application that doesn't use
anything provided by KDE itself is not a KDE app (I'm specifically
excluding platform-integration stuff loaded by the framework). So an
application (template) that solely links against QtCore cannot be a
KDE app - by definition.

Anyway, if KDE is what the rest of you think is suitable for plain-Qt
CMake app templates, so be it. I'm not needing the templates often
enough to loose too much sleep over this.

Andreas