[MacPorts] #48184: [NEW] kf5-attica

[MacPorts]

#48184: [NEW] kf5-attica
-------------------------+----------------------
  Reporter:  mk@…        |      Owner:  mk@…
      Type:  submission  |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal      |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports       |    Version:
Resolution:              |   Keywords:  haspatch
      Port:  kf5-attica  |
-------------------------+----------------------

Comment (by rjvbertin@…):

 Replying to [comment:4 mk@…]:

 > Alternatively I could create two port groups one called
 {{{kf5-framework}}} and the other {{{kf5-project}}}. I guess that needs
 discussion on the dev-ML...

 `kf5-internal` and `kf5`? Not that the Qt portgroups don't have a variable
 that indicates whether the port itself is building (= they do) ... but I
 think a single kf5 portgroup would become more complex than necessary
 /good-for-it that way.

 >
 >
 > > ... I'd strongly advise to use your KDE/CI experience to coerce that
 script into a portfile.
 >
 > For testing I have half-automatically created about 20 port files now.
 Of course I will come up with some helper scripts to create the required
 portfiles. See [https://github.com/haraldF/homebrew-kf5 Haralf Fernengel's
 HB github repo]!.

 There's always the possibility to generate a slew of subports
 programmatically, but that would make sense only if all those subports
 have the same dependencies.

 > Yes, there is, but the subset is built up of all those little KF5-ports.
 Every project has its own subset depending on its specific requirements.

 That the subset is built up out of a trazillion KF5 morsels isn't an issue
 as long as there's a script (like I understand there is) that takes care
 of building them as if they were a whole. That each KF5 "client"
 application depends on its own individual subset isn't an issue either.
 Declaring a dependency on `port:kf5` doesn't mean you have to link in all
 those frameworks (just like depending on `port:qt5-mac` doesn't mean you
 link with all Qt components.

 Again, suppose it turns out that you end up installing just about all KF5
 frameworks when you actually want to install systemsettings5, kate,
 konsole, KDevelop, KDE PIM, kdesvn and digiKam (just to name the ones I
 use regularly). In that case, isn't it much easier to have only a single
 port they need to depend on?

 There *is* a kdesrc script that supposedly takes care of the whole build
 process, no?

 > Well, in the end I could create meta-ports which might perhaps build the
 individual tiers of the KF5 frameworks.

 Hmmm, and in true hipster fashion you'd be doing that at a table in the
 Restaurant at the End of the Universe? ;)

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/48184#comment:5>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X