Hi Michael, > I like this as a general idea, because it is often useful to debug some > subset of a group of ports, maybe all of the dependent ports, and maybe > just the primary port in question.
yep. > If done correctly, one can "enforce variants" to get +debug everywhere > possible. Or, just for the ports needed. Since +debug is generally not > the default, this would help speed up those installs using +debug which > would be compiled from source locally. I figure you're talking in general here, i.e. it would be the to be newly introduced variant debug_kde which you're talking about, right? > qt4-mac (and, now qt5-mac), are notorious for being enormous > time consuming compiles, for which having a pre-compiled binary for > "most users" is a big win. That's the idea. :) > Anyway, I hope I interpreted your proposal correctly, Marko. - MLD Well, I hope I did interprete your response correctly, Michael. ;) Anyway, it is awesome to see qt5-mac appearing on the scene!!! I am looking forward to learn from its setup for the KDE/CI system which I am currently working on [1]. Re qt5-mac I am wondering whether coinstallability with qt4-mac will be achieved at some point, as it was already discussed in the related ticket [2]. I'll post my question comment there. Thanks so much for bringing qt5 now MacPorts'ish to OSX!!! Greets, Marko [1] https://trac.macports.org/wiki/KDEProblems/KDEMacPortsCI [2] http://trac.macports.org/ticket/37331 _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
