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....