Summary: | kde-base/kdepimlibs missed boost dependency in KdepimLibsConfig.cmake.in | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Alex Turbov <I.zaufi> |
Component: | [OLD] KDE | Assignee: | Gentoo KDE team <kde> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | karl.r.ernst |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=440710 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 425188 | ||
Attachments: | patch to add missed implicit dependency |
Description
Alex Turbov
2012-09-06 17:29:25 UTC
Created attachment 323096 [details, diff]
patch to add missed implicit dependency
When i understand upstream right this is a duplicate of bug #434044 ? (In reply to comment #2) > When i understand upstream right this is a duplicate of bug #434044 ? not a duplicate but blocks. But upstream says that this approach is totally wrong and should be fixed in pykde... (In reply to comment #4) > But upstream says that this approach is totally wrong and should be fixed in > pykde... Ok, I'll try to be polite (but it's really hard)... Just ask any SANE developer: what he expect from `find_package(...)` in cmake, or running `pkg-config --cflags ...`, or autoconf macros authors... should that configuration tools return a *COMPLETE* compiler options needed for successful compilation of his project which is depend on smth? Or is it Ok to call a bunch of other detectors to find depecdencies of its dependecy?? pykde DO NOT use boost explicitly! so WHY pykde developers should detect it??? I've got a broad experience as maintainer of closed and open source project based on autotools(+pkg-config) and cmake, and first time in my life met such a stupid case... just suppose if I wrote a library with a bunch of dependencies (boost, poco, qt4, kdelibs, lot of others), but in redistributable configuration file (.pc, .m4 or .cmake) just provide only -I/prefix/of/mylibrary and -lmylib... so my users HAVE to (re)detect all that IMPLICIT dependencies by themself... I guess than mylib will have the only user (me) in that case... or it must be really *brilliant*, so users will use it and write a sane configuration tool for me, but I'll reject the patches! (as KDE upstream now do)... damn stupid! (In reply to comment #4) > But upstream says that this approach is totally wrong and should be fixed in > pykde... try to ask upstream for reasons of that stupid behaviour... why they want to force OTHERS (pykde devs maybe some other projects) to do their job... Patch added in 4.9.1-r1 and later. Thanks. Upstream is not really behaving constructive. *** Bug 434044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |