On Thu Apr 26, 2018 at 10:43:14PM +0300, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > 2018-04-26 21:58 GMT+03:00 Rafael Sadowski <[email protected]>: > > Please find attached next new KDE4 replacement. > > > > Conflict bits are set: > > > > @conflict ktouch-<17.12.3 > > @conflict kdebase-* > > @pkgpath x11/kde4/ktouch > > > > $ cat x11/kde-applications/ktouch/pkg/DESCR > > KTouch is a typing learning tool for KDE. > > > > It is a part of KDE Edu project. > > > > Ok? Commenst? > > Well, ktouch conflicts with ktouch by definition, so the first > @conflict shouldn't be needed. :)
That was exactly the idea of not allowing either. The question is: do we want to replace everything step by step but how if we set conflict with kdebase-*. That doesn't make much sense to me. Or do we want KDE4 || KDE5 Application? I think teh following is wrong: > > @conflict ktouch-<17.12.3 > > @conflict kdebase-* > > @pkgpath x11/kde4/ktouch Because "@pkgpath x11/kde4/*" is in conflict with "@conflict kdebase-*" I prefer it like now. x11/kde4 OR x11/kde-applications/*: > > @conflict ktouch-<17.12.3 > > @conflict kdebase-* without pkgpath. I would be happy to hear the opinion of our pro porters!? > > IIRC, I've added such markers to > stuff under x11/kde-applications initially, thinking about > co-installation of KDE4 and KDE5 ones. But later I realized that they > co-exist more or less fine anyway, and dropped kde5- prefix idea, but > forgot about @conflict markers. > > Sorry for missing similar thing in kate port as well. >
