Good morning all, > > since we need the qca-ossl-plugin within one of our project, I've > > thought > > about improving the cmake support. > > What problems are you seeing? > > Note that cmake is considered a secondary build system for QCA (hence the > .qc / .qcm / .pro files).
Ok, but the actual one supported doesn't allow easy builds on windows. So I decided to take the cmake script which they provide (more or less nothing) and extend it (I know KDE has also one, but KDE does not have the newest version in repository and has another structure of the sources related to qca and the plugins). Yes, I've worried that they do not really want to support cmake. But compiling it on windows is a big horror and I've seen, that nearly any linux distribution applies many patches to their sources. So tonight I thought, it might be easier to create a new repository, import their sources, apply the patches, used by every distribution and merge the changes from the original source back into the new repository if they appear from time to time. This may be much more efficient than create patches independent at every distribution. Also windows and mac users (and kde) doesn't profit from the process right now. > > Starting with it, I've noticed, that the > > plugin consists of only one really big file. So I thought it is much > > better to split them up into several files containing only one class. > What do you want to achieve by splitting it up? During the compile and linking process I get many errors and it is really difficult to get the overview, if all appears at the same file. So a more structured source, should made the debugging during the compile run much more easy. Also create patches should be easier, since it is easier to understand the logic behind the source code. Regards, Joachim P.s.: Brad, thanks, I want to post it to the list! ;-) >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
