On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, René J.V. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The thing is, if ever we want to allow Qt4 and Qt5 to be present at the > same time, the installation location will *have* to change, and dependent > ports will have to comply with that. > > > >Yes, but not by using variants. MacPorts doesn't have the capability to > declare a dependency on a variant (ticket #126) and I'm still not convinced > that that should ever change. > How about a main port with the new paths, and a stub port or subport that depends on the main port, conflicts with qt4-mac, and installs the symlinks? Then we can replace qt4-mac with the stub port at some point. (Maybe make the stub port qt4-mac-devel, so it's maybe already handled as a potential dependency *and* it's announcing that it will eventually replace qt4-mac.) -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates [email protected] [email protected] unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
