RFC: propose a major restructure to `freeciv` port

[Jim DeLaHunt]

Hello, MacPorts developers:

I've been enjoying the *freeciv* game, supplied by MacPorts, over 
several years. My thanks to everyone whose efforts has made MacPorts 
possible. I am now ready to make a contribution myself.

I propose a major restructure to the *freeciv* port. I am looking for 
review of my suggestions, and agreement in principle that I can go ahead 
with them. I have opened ticket #62984 
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/62984 to collect input.

Summary: The present *freeciv* port is structured in a way which 
provides just a few of the 12 clients and utilities which the upstream 
codebase now provides. The present port is divided into two mutually 
incompatible sub-ports. I propose a major restructure, making a 
*freeciv* port, with variants instead of subports to include clients 
along with their dependencies, e.g. |@gtk3| to provide the 
*freeciv-gtk3* and *freeciv-gtk3.22* clients along with a dependency on 
port *gtk3*.

I'm concerned that this change will surprise present users of the 
*freeciv[-x11]* ports. They will need to specify variants which weren't 
necessary before. The port *freeciv-x11* goes away. What is the right 
way to announce this proposal, and gather feedback?

What is a good way of determining the exact list of ports on which each 
of these clients depends? I know they all build on my system, with its 
2000+ ports. But I don't see an easy way to determine the minimal set of 
ports required.

I welcome discussion here and in ticket #62984.

Thanks in advance,
     —Jim DeLaHunt

-- 
.   --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh at jdlh.com     http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/)
       multilingual websites consultant

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20210527/03ff13b2/attachment.htm>