qt5- prefix

Mojca Miklavec mojca at macports.org
Fri Jan 16 15:14:09 PST 2015

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM, René J.V. wrote:
> I only picked the qt5- prefix because there's some precedence, though admittedly Qt Creator has a qt4- prefix for the Qt4 version.
> Similarly, GTk ports indeed have -gtk2 or -gtk3 suffixes ... though there it might be more usual to have a GTk2 dependency be the implicit default.
>> I find the "qt5-" prefix objectionable.
> Frankly, I don't know and I don't have a real preference: I'm open to suggestions.
> We do have the likely situation where more and more ports will transition to, or at least add support for, Qt5. As long as MacPorts doesn't provide a mechanism to signal a port name change and thus let user installations go from, say, QtCurve to qt4-QtCurve automatically, I don't see another solution of the kind I've adopted in my 2 proposals (Charm and QtCurve).

Like other explained, you could use replaced_by to change the port
name, so you could have both qt4-qtcurve and qt5-qtcurve for example,
with qtcurve being automatically replaced by qt4-curve.

My view about prefix vs. suffix:

I have a somewhat strong feeling against using the prefix for Qt
applications. I would use a prefix for ports and modules that are
strictly related to Qt, for example qt5-widgets, qt5-webkit,
qt5-sensors, qt5-bluetooth, qt5-doc, ... (basically anything that
could be downloaded from the Nokia website, maybe a bit more), but I
would never use something like qt5-gnuplot or qt5-wireshark. Maybe
gnuplot-qt5 if it has to be, but it feels just wrong to me to prefix
random applications that only uses Qt. And honestly I would prefer to
keep using "gnuplot +qt5" rather than a separate port. This might be
different for modules/libraries/building blocks that other
applications need where you actually need to provide both versions. At
least until all other dependents upgrade to Qt 5.

I don't know what exactly QtCurve does, so I find it a bit difficult
to judge to which category it belongs and whether a prefix is
justified in that case.

But again, that's just my view.


PS: The only reason why I didn't switch to Qt5 in one of my ports was
because Qt4 and Qt5 still conflict and I cannot afford to make my port
Qt5-only, thus conflicting with many other ports.

More information about the macports-dev mailing list