On Jun 04, 2014, at 14:53, Nicolas Pavillon wrote: > I had a quick look at the Portfile, and apart some small things which could > be simplified, it seems fine to me. One thing missing though are the > maintainers. Should I put you, René, as you proposed it, or should I take it > as an additional dependency of KDE, or put both ? In case I take it, I would > be tempted to put things in the same format as other KDE ports for > convenience.
I didn't put a maintainer as I'm not particularly interested in that duty, for this port; I see it more as an additional KDE dependency. So please, do as you see fit. > > Kdepim4-runtime will anyway be revbumped if the dependency is added, but on a > side note, it should not provide built binaries due to license conflicts. Yeah, I notice that the google resources are LGPL3+ - Apple's allergy to that version begins to make me wonder if the project couldn't find a couple of "neutral" servers just to distribute those "tainted" ports (hint: there's already a network of mirrors ;)) Alternatively, maybe you can do the same as with kioslaves, lump the tainted components together in a port that would allow the "clean" majority to be distributed in binary form? Cheers, René. _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
