Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-11-02 Thread Albert Astals Cid
> On Oct. 19, 2012, 5:45 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Now this poses an interesting question, we are installing both okular and > > active-documentviewer saying they open the same mimetypes and saying they > > have the same initial preference, thus on a system that has both installed, >

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-22 Thread Marco Martin
> On Oct. 19, 2012, 5:45 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Now this poses an interesting question, we are installing both okular and > > active-documentviewer saying they open the same mimetypes and saying they > > have the same initial preference, thus on a system that has both installed, >

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-22 Thread Albert Astals Cid
El Dilluns, 22 d'octubre de 2012, a les 07:36:59, Bogdan Cristea va escriure: > On Monday 22 October 2012 00:21:33 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > The "active" (touch) code needs to be able to be compiled in a server (as > > distributions do). So you can't do any assumption on the host > > environment

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-21 Thread Bogdan Cristea
On Monday 22 October 2012 00:21:33 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > The "active" (touch) code needs to be able to be compiled in a server (as > distributions do). So you can't do any assumption on the host > environment/hardware doing the compiation versus the target > environment/hardware. Well, I g

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-21 Thread Albert Astals Cid
El Diumenge, 21 d'octubre de 2012, a les 23:58:54, Bogdan Cristea va escriure: > On Sunday 21 October 2012 23:35:52 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > I don't think it makes mush sense either, it'd mean distributions would > > have to build the binary for the touch code in a touch enabled server? > > I

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-21 Thread Bogdan Cristea
On Sunday 21 October 2012 23:35:52 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > I don't think it makes mush sense either, it'd mean distributions would > have to build the binary for the touch code in a touch enabled server? I mean that okular active must rely on an API in order to use the touch screen, so one co

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-21 Thread Albert Astals Cid
El Diumenge, 21 d'octubre de 2012, a les 22:48:47, Bogdan Cristea va escriure: > On Sunday 21 October 2012 22:44:59 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > That doesn't really help with the problem since you can't embed C++ code > > in > > a .desktop file > > No, but you could use this in a cmake lists file

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-21 Thread Bogdan Cristea
On Sunday 21 October 2012 22:44:59 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > That doesn't really help with the problem since you can't embed C++ code in > a .desktop file No, but you could use this in a cmake lists file instead of a cmake switch as you said previously. -- Bogdan _

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-21 Thread Albert Astals Cid
El Divendres, 19 d'octubre de 2012, a les 19:55:45, Bogdan Cristea va escriure: > On Friday 19 October 2012 17:46:01 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > One would say that on desktop you want okular to have a higher initial > > preference and the reverse on touch systems, but how do we do that? with a >

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-20 Thread Bogdan Cristea
On Friday 19 October 2012 17:46:01 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > One would say that on desktop you want okular to have a higher initial > preference and the reverse on touch systems, but how do we do that? with a > cmake switch? You could test this with a cpp file called from cmake (provided that Qt

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-19 Thread Albert Astals Cid
> On Oct. 19, 2012, 5:45 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Now this poses an interesting question, we are installing both okular and > > active-documentviewer saying they open the same mimetypes and saying they > > have the same initial preference, thus on a system that has both installed, >

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-19 Thread Albert Astals Cid
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106930/#review20581 --- Now this poses an interesting question, we are installing both

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-18 Thread Marco Martin
> On Oct. 17, 2012, 9:56 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > generators/xps/CMakeLists.txt, line 22 > > > > > > Why the active-documentviewer_xps in both install lines? whops, that's was just forgotten, corrected als

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-18 Thread Marco Martin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106930/ --- (Updated Oct. 18, 2012, 9:09 a.m.) Review request for Okular. Descriptio

Re: [Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-17 Thread Albert Astals Cid
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106930/#review20528 --- generators/xps/CMakeLists.txt

[Okular-devel] Review Request: Split active app desktop file

2012-10-17 Thread Marco Martin
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106930/ --- Review request for Okular. Description --- splits the desktop file of