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

[Lawrence Velázquez]

> On Oct 23, 2016, at 3:59 AM, Chris Jones <jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Would I prefer that they be organized the way all the other ports are
already organized? Yes. Our current inconsistent hodgepodge is the worse
of all worlds.

Would I push to reorganize them at this point? No. It's not worth the
effort.

> 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.

Users are exposed to them insofar as a port's primary category
corresponds to the directory it's stored in. Do users use categories?
I don't know.

As a developer, I don't even bother looking at the location of ports
because the organization of the ports tree is so inconsistent.

vq