kile-devel to stable version

[Nicolas Pavillon]

Hello, 

I created a ticket (https://trac.macports.org/ticket/30214) for the update of kile to stable version, in order to have things archived in the system. The current proposed name for the new port is kile21, as no consensus was proposed up to this point. 
This discussion is linked in the ticket, in order to enable a name change according to discussion if necessary. 

Cheers, 

Nicolas

On Jul 7, 2011, at 1:15 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> 
> On Jul 5, 2011, at 19:34, Nicolas Pavillon wrote:
> 
>>> KDE4 is there and works. Yes.
>>> But sometimes it doesn't. Like just now. I can't get it going anymore.
>>> Looks like we're still in a transition phase.
>>> There are still many people using KDE3 applications.
>>> Since KDE3 and KDE4 can't coexist, I wouldn't like to see a KDE3 port intentionally eradicated.
>> 
>> The behaviour is indeed weird. As for myself, it did not work for a long time, but just recently, I tried a clean install after I saw that some changes had been performed on dbus, and it is presently working. 
>> 
>>> Ah, ok. I don't use KDE and I was hoping that KDE3 was obsolete at this point, but I guess not. So do we have any existing port naming conventions in MacPorts with regard to how a user will know if a particular port is for KDE3 or KDE4?
>> 
>> As for the base ports of kde, the naming convention seems to add the KDE version to the port (e.g. kdebase3 vs. kdebase4).
> 
> Agreed. And this makes sense, since kdebase3 is for version 3.x of kdebase and kdebase4 is for version 4.x of kdebase.
> 
>> In this fashion, should the port be named kile4 ? The convention (if it is one) is however not respected for kile, as the KDE3 port is "kile". 
> 
> This would not make sense to me, since kile (and other software that uses KDE) has its own version numbering scheme. The existing kile port is not for version 3.x of kile; it is for kile 2.0.1 at present.
> 
> In other situations in MacPorts where we maintain multiple parallel ports for a single piece of software, we seem to use a prefix. For example the Python module ports (py26-tz, py27-tz, py31-tz, etc.) or the Ruby module ports (e.g. rb-builder and rb19-builder). Does it make sense to use something similar for KDE ports? e.g. kde3-kile and kde4-kile. Another question is where these hypothetical ports would install their files to. Clearly we can't have multiple kile ports that all want to install ${prefix}/bin/kile. Do we append the KDE version number to the binary, as we do for the Python modules (kile-3, kile-4), which gives me the same odd feeling expressed in the preceding paragraph, or do we figure out some other way to avoid the conflict (like installing into a different directory)?
> 
> I just re-read the first paragraph quoted above. I think previously I just read "There are still many people using KDE3 applications" and took this to mean that we should keep KDE3 in MacPorts. But now I read "Since KDE3 and KDE4 can't coexist, I wouldn't like to see a KDE3 port intentionally eradicated" implying we should not keep KDE3 in MacPorts. So which is it?
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20110721/fb973d67/attachment.html>