On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 10:54:46PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> On Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 10:03:56PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 09:14:01PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > after a long journey with all qca2 consumers, I'm happy to publish this
> > > diff. First of all the security/qca2 changelog part:
> > >
> > > - Update from 2.0.3 to 2.1.3.
> > > - Transform security/{qca-ossl,qca-gnupg} in one security/qca2 port with
> > > MULTI_PACKAGES -ossl and -gnupg.
> > > - rRename PKGNAME from qca2 to qca2-qt4 (qca2-qt5 is in the pipeline)
> > > - Disable SSL2 and SSL3 by default!
> > > - "qt42 suffix and no more qca2
> > > - Improve QcaConfig and remove alle unnecessary patches.
> > > - Add @conflict and @pkgpath into the FLAVORS. Ok? (final pkg_add -u
> > > test will follow)
> >
> > That's a lot of churn - does it all come from upstream or that's a local
> > customisation ? Ie will the diffs be commited upstream once someone
> > tells them they dont build against newer qca2 ?
> >
>
> What do you mean with churn? I think, only one port in place of tree is
> a good idea. I renamed share lib and pkgname to avoid conflicts with
> security/qca (qca1) and upcoming qca2-qt5. The QcaConfig extension was
> necessary to patch and modify less the consumers.
>
> But after your e-mail I grep for security/qca and there are no consumers.
> New idea because we can get rid of qca1:
>
> - remove the old security/qca.
> - update qca from 2.0.3 to 2.1.3. (with MULTI_PACKAGES to remove
> security/{qca-ossl,qca-gnupg}
You mean update *security/qca2* right ?
> - don't remove pkgname. qca2 is okay
> - don't prefix qca with "-qt4" and don't rename qca to qca2 as it is
> currently. All consumers expect libqca and for Qt5 libqca-qt5. FreeBSD
> makes it so and I think, that's the bast way.
So if i get it right, that'll be less churn around in the consumers ? I
think that'll be preffered then....
