Review Request 128956: Make KF5Baloo optional

[Andreas Sturmlechner]

> On Oct. 9, 2016, 5:46 p.m., Andreas Hartmetz wrote:
> > Why not add logic to the runner to disable it automatically in the appropriate conditions? It doesn't have to be as simplistic as "there is no Baloo database at all". The other Andreas sort of suggested that and dismissed it right away but I think it's a good idea.
> > For example, it could be tri-state: Disabled by default if Baloo file search is disabled, enabled if file search is enabled, or explicitly enabled / disabled. While it's ugly, it also covers the case that somebody uses only E-mail indexing. E-mail indexing is super useful IME, and somebody might want to use it from krunner. I just use it from KMail, though...
> > One could also add an option to the Baloo KCM to clear the file index, which would automatically disable the runner (not sure if this is doable with a small amount of work / code).
> > I don't think it is a good idea to effectively make distributions choose Baloo support or not in krunner. If they still really want to, they can probably use the cascading feature of KConfig and supply a global config file that disables the Baloo runner by default.

Oh, it totally makes sense to interact with the KCM setting, it's just outside the scope of this RR. To a user it is not at all obvious that they need to disable it in two places. They will just start to type in krunner or K menu with a big chance of a segfault. The KCM itself should additionally stop the indexing when being disabled.

The default would always be _with_ Baloo, but giving choice to disable build for certain systems is just a nice thing to do. To kind of enforce that default, one could also add a default-on option to cmake so that it continued to fail to configure with missing Baloo instead of silently build without it.


- Andreas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128956/#review99882
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 20, 2016, 12:06 p.m., Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128956/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 20, 2016, 12:06 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Plasma.
> 
> 
> Repository: plasma-workspace
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2016-September/037734.html
> 
> Regardless of the current state of Baloo, it is not very deeply tied into Plasma. Usage in plasma-workspace comes down to providing the baloo runner.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   CMakeLists.txt 9da918358bd797b8fe00de646b6576ba22976d0e 
>   runners/CMakeLists.txt 48cc3799f834a57031ae387a35f41859178fe317 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/128956/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Several days of Plasma-5 without any issues. Usage of krunner without any segfaults.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andreas Sturmlechner
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20161009/1e996199/attachment.html>