No need to move virtualbox-ose. Also, I think it is better to keep qemu
in emulators.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Mon 2018-12-24 11:06:56 UTC+0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld
(w.schwarzenf...@utanet.at) wrote:
> The qt* ports spreads around in the whole portstree.
>
> It is reasonable to concentrate all these ports in a qt category? I think it
> is easier to find (and also easier to maintain).
Why?
You'd
On Monday, 24 December 2018 13:00:02 CET freebsd-ports-requ...@freebsd.org
wrote:
> > The qt* ports spreads around in the whole portstree.
> >
> > It is reasonable to concentrate all these ports in a qt category? I
> > think it is easier to find (and also easier to maintain).
>
> Indeed it is a
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 11:06:56AM +0100, Walter Schwarzenfeld wrote:
> The qt* ports spreads around in the whole portstree.
>
> It is reasonable to concentrate all these ports in a qt category? I think it
> is easier to find (and also easier to maintain).
While a virtual category could easily
> The qt* ports spreads around in the whole portstree.
>
> It is reasonable to concentrate all these ports in a qt category? I
> think it is easier to find (and also easier to maintain).
Indeed it is a bit annoying for me when I have to update qt* ports.
I don't use portmaster or similar (I don't
The qt* ports spreads around in the whole portstree.
It is reasonable to concentrate all these ports in a qt category? I
think it is easier to find (and also easier to maintain).
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
