[MacPorts] #32716: geant4: update to 9.5

[MacPorts]

#32716: geant4: update to 9.5
---------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  ryandesign@…  |      Owner:  cristiano.fontana@…
      Type:  update        |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal        |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports         |    Version:
Resolution:                |   Keywords:
      Port:  geant4        |
---------------------------+---------------------------------

Comment (by mojca@…):

 > > - '''Smooth transition from 4.9.4''': I'm not sure what is needed or
 how to implement it.
 >
 > Make the current {{{geant4}}} port {{{replaced_by geant4.9.6}}}.
 If I understand correctly this is only possible if the new port is called
 {{{geant}}}?

 > > - Decide on exact port name: {{{geant4}}}?
 >
 > I recommend the overall meta port be called "geant" so the version is
 not encoded in the name. This allows an easy transition from the current
 geant4 port to be {{{replaced_by}}} this.

 This is definitely true. (I don't know to what extent calling the new port
 {{{geant4}}} would be a problem though. I wouldn't know how to handle it
 in any case.)

 > > - Decide on exact subport name: {{{geant4.9.6}}}?
 >
 > I like the this. The perl ports (messed up as the perl situation is) are
 a good example. I never liked the python/ruby model which omits the
 periods. The ruby186 port is a good example of a confusing name.

 But then I have another question for you: how would you name the patch
 files (I currently have {{{patch-cmake-Modules-
 Geant4BuildProjectConfig.cmake.4100.diff}}} for example) and variants
 ({{{gate}}} could depend on two different versions of geant, I called them
 {{{geant495}}} and {{{geant496}}}; would more verbose variant names be
 better?)

 > > - Decide on exact variant names: {{{raytracer_x11/raytracerx}}},
 {{{motif/motif_x11}}}, {{{opengl_x11/x11}}}
 >
 > I like the more explicit naming: {{{raytracer_x11}}}, {{{motif_x11}}},
 {{{opengl_x11}}}. But I say that without knowing what the exact
 differences are.

 Just different GUIs, in fact one more obsolete on mac than the other
 (maybe raytracer is usable). Maybe they could be a tiny bit faster than
 Qt, but definitely a lot more clumsy to use. Another option is to leave
 them in the port for a while, only comment them out and ask for the first
 user to request them. If nobody requests them, I would actually be happier
 to leave x11 out.

 > > - Document how to use the port (where could this go?)
 >
 > Use the [http://trac.macports.org/wiki/howto wiki HOWTO page] to link to
 a new geant subpage which documents everything. The port itself can have a
 "{{{notes}}}" entry which links to this.

 Thank you.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/32716#comment:17>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X