Comments on: QPackageKit into PackageKit

By: Michael "Just one build system" Howell

Michael "Just one build system" Howell — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:25:00 +0000

If it’s absolutely impossible to migrate PK completely to CMake, you may be able to completely convert PK-Qt to Autotools. The idea makes me feel ill, but it may be the only way.

By: Dan Nicholson

Dan Nicholson — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:01:08 +0000

Am I wrong, or do you just need to distribute CMakeLists.txt? In that case, I think you can just dist the whole directory:

EXTRA_DIST += lib/packagekit-qt

That will unfortunately glob any garbage in the directory, but it might be easier than building a full list of files to distribute from the packagekit-qt directory.

By: patpi

patpi — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:04:55 +0000

By the way, if you want to know more about Packagekit-Qt and KpackageKit there is nice interview at Polishlinux.org, a lot of screenshots inside: http://polishlinux.org/kde/kpackagekit-interview/

By: Aaron Seigo

Aaron Seigo — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:17:47 +0000

> it’s still a necessary evil since most free software

that’s a bit of a circular argument: project X must use autotools because autotools is used by many FOSS projects and project X is a FOSS project. nah .. as all the projects that have successfully moved away from autotools have proven in the last few years (be it to cmake or elsewhere), it’s not only possible it’s a great improvement.

> there are two different build system in KDE world (qmake and cmake)

KDE projects use cmake pretty much exclusively. there are Qt-only apps that use qmake, which is a simpler though rather capable build tool that comes with Qt itself. ome Qt-only apps use cmake these days as well; so it’s not quite the situation you paint.

reality is that cmake is the general “winner” in that it’s what all of the KDE project uses and the vast majority of 3rd party KDE apps, along with large numbers of completely KDE-unrelated projects as well (just as with autotools =)

cmake is available pretty much everywhere now and is so much nicer than autotools at this point in its development that it isn’t even funny.

choose whatever you want, but let’s keep the facts straight in the process =)

By: Zeeshan Ali

Zeeshan Ali — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:00:24 +0000

>The nicest option would probably be to switch >PackageKit to CMake all the way.

Although i love to hate autotools but i think it’s still a necessary evil since most free software (and even many non-free) projects still use that. The ones who moved away don’t agree on the build system to move to and that has resulted only in confusion. If i am correct, there are two different build system in KDE world (qmake and cmake) so you can estimate how helpful it is to talk of moving away from autotools.

By: Jakob Petsovits

Jakob Petsovits — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:55:22 +0000

The nicest option would probably be to switch PackageKit to CMake all the way. Not sure if you’re willing to spend a bit of time with such a port, but it’s certainly something to consider. (Especially since CMake is so much more comfortable than automake… it would probably pay off in the long run.)

By: QPackageKit entra in PackageKit « pollycoke :)

QPackageKit entra in PackageKit « pollycoke :) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:43:38 +0000

[...] Richard Hughes, uno dei miei eroi ufficiali, ha appena annunciato che QPackageKit è appena stato incluso in PackageKit! Adesso tocca solo compiere l’ultimo passo e avremo una gestione del software inarrivabile e soprattutto unificata per entrambi i toolkit/desktop principali Etichette: Adept, GNOME, KDE, KPackageKit, PackageKit, QPkackageKit, Synaptic [...]

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:10:37 +0000

I’d just like so comment on how well package kit has done. You’ve not only managed to make a distribution agnostic packaging solution – but also found support from KDE and GNOME. This is truly quite incredible.