Re: category qt?
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 "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: category qt?
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 end up with, for eg. VirtualBox at emulators/virtualbox-ose being moved to qt/virtualbox-ose, and QEMU remain as emulators/qemu, which is a system that makes no sense to me. I suspect many other people would object to something like that. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: category qt?
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 bit annoying for me when I have to update qt* ports. > I don't use portmaster or similar (I don't like them): I wrote my own > utility, but it has still some issues, such as this one. I guess having > all the qt* ports in the same category would help. You might argue that all (?) the Qt ports are libraries and development tools, and so could live in the devel/ category. Or along other lines, that the split of Qt into a bunch of separate packages is superfluous and they should be merged (like gtk3, which is one big port -- I don't know if this is a useful functional analogy though). But what makes Qt special in this regard? (One answer I'll accept is "the ports need to be updated in a coordinated fashion"). The reason (for instance) that two of the Qt5 ports live in textproc/ is .. that they're concerned with doing text processing. That functional-categorization in the ports tree has been there since always. I guess it depends on the original post: "easier to find" for what? If you're calling for a *virtual* category (like KDE ports have), that makes immediate sense to me (but would leave the ports scattered around the ports tree). [ade] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: category qt?
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 be added (by having USES=qt add it automatically) a physical category makes little sense. It would be like having all the p5- ports put in a perl directory. -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: category qt?
> 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 like them): I wrote my own utility, but it has still some issues, such as this one. I guess having all the qt* ports in the same category would help. Lorenzo Salvadore. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
category qt?
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 https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
