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

Chris Jones jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk
Sun Oct 23 00:59:19 PDT 2016

On 23 Oct 2016, at 3:14 am, Lawrence Velázquez <larryv at macports.org> wrote:

>> 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.)

So... you are saying you would take these collections, and instead of grouping them together scatter them around in the other directories, like 'science' etc., depending on what sort of functionality they provide ? I think that would be much worse, sorry.

I also question would these directories are really for, users or developers ? I don't think users really get much exposure to them, they don't really have much bearing on how users find and install ports. For me, its more for the developers, so we should be flexible in how they are grouped depending on what makes sense to whoever is maintaining them. Grouping all the kde ports in one directory because they obviously share many details just makes sense to me. 


> vq
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
> https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev

More information about the macports-dev mailing list