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

[René J.V. Bertin]

On Sunday October 23 2016 02:21:02 Marko Käning wrote:

>> I should have another look at exactly how the mainstream *Qmake5* PortGroup interacts with port:qt5-kde . 
>
>Could you investigate this further in the meantime?

Done. There are some differences in the way port:qt5 and port:qt5-kde handle the +universal and esp. the +debug variants which justify the remaining differences.
Ultimately the changes between our PortGroups are quite small, but they appear more invasive since I've had to move things around in order to introduce a single if/else block that contains the actual differences.

What I could do is reorganise the mainstream/official qmake5 PG so that the actual differences become apparent between that file and mine. But I'd really like Calhoun to ask for that explicitly, otherwise chances are too big it's just more needless effort.

>I guess we can wait committing those once the new GitHub workflow is in place, because
>it would make reviewing all the changes much easier in a GitHub’ish pull request. :)

SVN is being retired completely? I noticed it for Trac (which isn't a complete improvement *).
I'm not aware that git allows pulling only changes to a single subdirectory like svn does (svn up in a port dir. to update only that port, for instance). Does it?


*) open a ticket via an email alert, notice you're not logged in (anymore), click on login, use the back button to go back to the ticket page, *reload*, and only then can you reply.

R.