[Marble-devel] Simplified builds: Adding marble-qt

[Torsten Rahn]

Sounds good to me. In fact this solution had been regarded as the ideal 
solution since long. Personally I think it should be "marble" (KDE) and  
"marble-qt" (Qt). This should also increase awareness of distributors. However 
there's one issue not covered yet: How should desktop files be created? Have 
one for each? Or should there only be a single one pointing to the "preferred" 
choice?

On Samstag, 10. November 2012 21:03:50 Dennis Nienhüser wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> currently we build the Desktop version bin/marble either as a KDE or a
> Qt version based on the QTONLY cmake switch. This has a couple of
> drawbacks: - it confuses newcomers
> - it's not immediately clear which version you have on disk (you have to
> run ldd on it or execute it)
> - distributions/packagers can not build both versions in one go
> - we break the build of the currently not active target regularly
> 
> To improve that I'd like to propose these changes:
> - Reduce the QTONLY switch usage in src/lib as much as possible (ideally
> the lib is identical regardless of the QTONLY setting)
> - Build and install the Desktop Qt version always, and name it
> bin/marble-qt - Build and install the Desktop KDE version if KDE libs are
> found, name it either bin/marble or bin/marble-kde
> - Have cmake options (like BUILD_MARBLE_DESKTOP_QT,
> BUILD_MARBLE_DESKTOP_KDE) for those who don't like the defaults / auto
> detection
> 
> Keeping the KDE version as bin/marble (instead of bin/marble-kde) would
> be less confusing for those used to executing the binary directly
> (instead of using a .desktop file) at the cost of losing some
> consistency, but probably worth doing.
> 
> Please speak up if you don't want that change / see major disadvantages.
> Otherwise I'd work on it for 1.6 (after the current freeze).
> 
> Regards,
> Dennis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Marble-devel mailing list
> Marble-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/marble-devel