On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 14:49 +0100, Ove Kåven wrote:
Well, I'm trying to build a GUI for Sailfish, which is Qt5-based.
Qt5 is not really supported by SyncEvolution. Although I've added some
workarounds in the backends, it would probably be nice if Qt5 was more
directly supported by the build system.
I don't know what the best way to handle Qt5 with autoconf/automake is
these days. I'm open for suggestions.
The existing Qt D-Bus bindings are not used by anything at the
moment. Feel free to make whatever changes you need.
> --- a/src/backends/kcalextended/configure-sub.in
> +++ b/src/backends/kcalextended/configure-sub.in
> @@ -13,5 +13,6 @@ SE_ARG_ENABLE_BACKEND(kcalextended,
> if test "$enable_kcalextended" = "yes"; then
> AC_DEFINE(ENABLE_KCALEXTENDED, 1, [KCalExtended available])
> - PKG_CHECK_MODULES(KCALEXTENDED, libmkcal libkcalcoren)
> + PKG_CHECK_MODULES(KCALEXTENDED, libmkcal-qt5 libkcalcoren-qt5 Qt5Core,,
> + [PKG_CHECK_MODULES(KCALEXTENDED, libmkcal libkcalcoren)])
(Fairly straightforward, but the Qt5Core part would probably not be
needed if the build system supported Qt5)
Would you prefer something like a --enable-qt5 switch? Something
explicit instead of this implicit "pick the most recent version that we
can find"? It might be a bit clearer, but other than that, such an
automatic fallback isn't that bad, is it?
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.