port:qt5 and (proposed) port:qt5-kde cohabitation

[Lawrence Velázquez]

> On Oct 22, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Marko Käning <mk-macports at posteo.net> wrote:
> 
> in the light of the upcoming commit of the new 'qt5-kde' port I want
> to ask (again) whether it would be acceptable, that we - for the sake
> of housekeeping - store all KF5-related ports in a dedicated folder at
> 
>    dports/kf5
> 
> or whether it is really necessary, that all these KDE ports have to
> live under
> 
>    dports/kde
> 
> just like all those port files belonging to KDE 3 and 4?

Why should KF5 get its own category? It's not special.

> - and both port collections having independent maintainers (Nicolas
> and René)

This has no bearing on anything.

> it would make maintenance easier if one kept also their storage
> locations separate, no?

I don't see why separating them would make anything easier. It's not as
if there's any namespacing going on. The ports would still have to have
unique names.

> Are there other reasons of not going for such an approach which we up
> to now aren’t aware of, perhaps?

I think having top-level directories based on implementation details
like language or framework are silly and pointless from a users'
perspective, and we should not add anymore of them.

(No, I don't like the top-level "java", "php", "python", etc.
directories, either.)

vq