Make Wayland optional
Review Request #128073 - Created June 1, 2016 and discarded
|dvratil, graesslin, sebas|
Look for KF5Wayland as optional package, not building all the Wayland-related code (backend, additions to tests, DPMS support in kscreen-doctor) if it is not available.
This allows libkscreen to build again on platforms without Wayland, such as non-Linux or old Linux distros.
|use feature_summary instead of messages||Martin Flöser|
|use a proper configure file instead of adding definitions as compile flags||Martin Flöser|
|qCWarning instead of cerr||Martin Flöser|
|what's the point of having setDpms method around if the implementation is ifdefed?||Martin Flöser|
|same here - the method is pointless||Martin Flöser|
Just to be clear: by doing the review, I do not change my mind. This is just for the case that the maintainer decides differently.
Speaking with the maintainer's hat on: I don't want this.
Here are the reasons:
- We are short on manpower, adding a build option makes this worse as we now have to maintain different versions of the build
- It's not going to be autotested on KDE CI
- I don't have the time to tell users that they have to rebuild libkscreen with wayland enabled to fix their systems
- I can't guarantee that changes we make in the future won't require wayland, and I'm not willing to invest time into making sure it still builds in both configurations
I understand that for some, it's important to have no wayland deps (be these reasons valid or not), but for us it's causing more work and for the sake of our users, I'm making the call that we concentrate on bugs our users report, not on making our builds more complex, because that would achieve the opposite.