macports-dev Digest, Vol 47, Issue 22

[Ryan Stonecipher-Fisher]

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Michael Dickens" <michaelld at macports.org>
> To: "MacPortsDevList" <macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:20:44 -0400
> Subject: Qt extension install locations
> I've been updating the qt* portfiles; last night it was for
> qt4-mac[-devel], and today I'll hopefully check in those for qt3-mac &
> related ports.  As I'm doing these changes, I'm also working over direct
> dependencies to make sure they still function correctly -- and, changing
> them as minimally as possible in most cases so that they work (for me).
> Most dependent ports do not create "Qt extensions" (e.g. plugins,
> translations, extra includes or libraries), but instead make use of Qt
> in some other way -- these get installed into ${prefix} since that makes
> the most sense.  Then there are those ports, such as qca and qscintilla,
> that are explicitly Qt extensions.  The former is currently installed in
> ${prefix} while the latter is installed into ${qt_dir}.  Both install
> locations have their benefits and drawbacks; I don't know which way is
> the better way to go.  Thoughts? - MLD
>

On a related note, it looks like gst-plugins-base is in limbo.
The build phase fails when trying to build
tests/examples/overlay/qt-xoverlay.cpp, which is rather unexpected
since the source tarball's  "REQUIREMENTS" file makes no mention of
qt.
Do you experience that behavior when building gst-plugins-base against
the most current qt4 ports?
If not, should the gst-plugins-base port depend upon qt4-foo so that
qt4 is updated before gst-plugins-base when running "port upgrade
outdated"?

Ryan Stonecipher-Fisher
573.489.2848