Hi René,
2015-06-27 9:36 GMT+02:00 René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com:
that portgroup should also be usable just to record a dependency on Qt for
applications that use neither cmake nor qmake (ports using py-qt for
instance?).
do you mean that any port depending on Qt or PyQt should use the qt4
On Saturday June 27 2015 01:49:46 Marko Käning wrote:
Hi Marcus,
I wondered whether port group “qt5” should also include port group “cmake”
since it is internally making use of it anyways?!
What makes you think that? It's not the case AFAIK. Qt5 provides both its own
qmake system and a bunch of
As a PS: something that might make sense is to provide the qmake portgroups
with an out_of_source option like the cmake portgroup has. I'm not sure to
what extent all qmake versions and qmake-based projects have sufficient support
for that (QtWebengine doesn't support it, for instance), but
Hi René,
On 27 Jun 2015, at 09:36 , René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
The {c,q}make portgroups redefine the default build system, so including
either of them with the qt5 portgroup isn't appropriate
ok, good to know! That’s why I am asking here. :)
Thanks,
Marko
On Saturday June 27 2015 11:59:21 Davide Liessi wrote:
Hi,
do you mean that any port depending on Qt or PyQt should use the qt4
or qt5 PortGroup?
If so, why?
Indeed. For 2 reasons:
- it declares the dependency on the Qt port in an appropriate way that allows
the user to install any port that
Hi Marcus,
I wondered whether port group “qt5” should also include port group “cmake”
since it is internally making use of it anyways?!
Greets,
Marko
___
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
