[MacPorts] #48088: proposed improvements to port:qt5-mac

[MacPorts]

#48088: proposed improvements to port:qt5-mac
--------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  rjvbertin@…  |      Owner:  macports-tickets@…
      Type:  enhancement  |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal       |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports        |    Version:
Resolution:               |   Keywords:
      Port:  qt5-mac      |
--------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment (by rjvbertin@…):

 To develop this point a little bit more:

 > > As noted earlier, it is not the same "scheme used by Linux distros."

 I'm *not* saying this is how Qt installs on Linux if someone grabs the
 sources and follows the instructions. (Those instructions even make it
 clear that installation is optional, btw.)
 I'm referring to what's done by Linux distributions that provide and use
 3rd party software like Qt in a way that's very comparable to what
 MacPorts aims to do. That goal is not simply to provide Qt so that one can
 build standalone applications that can be distributed as a self-contained
 ensemble (*that* is more or less Qt's principal goal). It's to provide a
 Qt installation that is installed such that it facilitates its shared use,
 in an environment based on FreeDesktop.org (and XDG) conventions. A Linux
 user might be running Qt-based applications while using a Gnome desktop or
 Gnome applications on a KDE desktop. This is not entirely relevant on OS X
 as no one is likely to run a "pure" KDE desktop (a Gnome desktop in
 addition to "Aqua" is perfectly possible, though). Still, it should be
 possible to share certain resources between Qt, KDE/KF5, GTk, Gnome, XFCE
 etc. applications if they're installed through MacPorts. I won't say that
 is impossible to do with Qt completely installed somewhere in its own
 corner (because I don't have proof for that), but I do suspect that it
 could be a lot harder. Nicos and/or Michael may know more about this.
 To look on it another way: there's nothing stopping Linux distro
 maintainers from sticking Qt in its own tree; for them it makes
 maintaining the Qt package itself a lot easier. The fact that they've gone
 that extra length to layout the installation the way it is done in, say,
 Ubuntu, cannot but mean that there are good reasons to do it in such a
 way, IMHO.
 (And to give credit where credit is due: Michael, I think your version as
 used in qt4-mac is rather cleaner than the one in Ubuntu, shown above.)

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/48088#comment:10>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X