All KDE ports need a major revbump, due to recent changes to qt4-mac

[Mojca Miklavec]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2015-10-29 17:05, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>> When 10.11 came out (where Qt 4 no longer worked), the
>> switch to Qt 5 and moving Qt 4 away suddenly had to be done in a
>> hurry, so the maintainer decided for the easier path to simply put
>> everything under the same prefix.
>
> I understand that some of these parts conflict in filename, but the
> files I mentioned do not. They can co-exist in ${prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/
> or ${prefix}/share/cmake/ (Qt* for qt4 and Qt5* for qt5). I see no
> reason to move these files.

In my opinion it is also *much* better if CMake and pkg-config files
end up where they are supposed to be. (There are also many other files
like "libexec/qt4/share/doc" that could easily be in "share/doc/qt4/"
etc, even though those are not as critical.)

It's just that it was a lot easier to move those files (just add
--prefix=... to configure) than not to move them at that time.

If it was a smaller package, I would say "let's just commit the change
that fixes that", but it might be wise to at least collect all the
changes that are worth making and that are "safe enough" to make to
avoid unnecessary rebuilds. (But then again not to wait forever.)

>> Any port than requires Qt should include one of the two qt portgroups
>> that sets all the necessary variables, so that even if Qt 4/5 layout
>> changes again, it should be a simple matter of a revbump of
>> dependents.
>
> That is correct for use of Qt by dependent ports. However, if a user
> wants to compile software from source which is not yet provided in a
> port (or builds their own version for development), manually setting up
> PKG_CONFIG_PATH and/or CMAKE_MODULE_PATH is cumbersome.

True. (Even though that is also a problem for many other
ports/libraries that we ship.)

Mojca