On Dec 12, 2014, at 12:31 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday December 12 2014 12:21:54 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
Does the variable qt4_is_concurrent exist? If not, the portfile itself
throws an error and won't index.
Yes, it exists, and portindex doesn't throw an
On Dec 11, 2014, at 4:07 AM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
It'd also be very helpful if there were an override simply for the portfile
has changed, cleaning everything feature.
The -o option does this. Check the port(1) manpage.
vq
Sent from my iPhone
On Thursday December 11 2014 05:33:30 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
The -o option does this. Check the port(1) manpage.
Ah, has this behaviour been modified lately? I remember it didn't always work
as I expected.
BTW, does this update the sha tag in the statefile, or will I still get a `port
On Dec 11, 2014, at 5:31 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Thursday December 11 2014 05:33:30 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
The -o option does this. Check the port(1) manpage.
Ah, has this behaviour been modified lately? I remember it didn't always work
as I expected.
I'm not aware of any
On Dec 10, 2014, at 1:27 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Wednesday December 10 2014 12:20:58 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
The thing is, if ever we want to allow Qt4 and Qt5 to be present at the
same time, the installation location will *have* to change, and dependent
ports will have to comply with
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:07 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
How about a main port with the new paths, and a stub port or subport that
depends on the main port, conflicts with qt4-mac, and installs the
symlinks? Then we can replace qt4-mac with the stub port at some point.
I like
On Dec 11, 2014, at 9:21 AM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I have willingly not provided a mechanism to avoid breakage of ports
installed against +concurrent.
But remember that I did try to set +concurrent by default if qt4-mac is
installed that way.
We have to consider
On Thursday December 11 2014 12:41:03 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
Don't rely on rev-upgrade in lieu of proper revbumping. Don't assume that
everyone uses binaries.
Only the binaries change location, plus the cmake files. And those are found
dynamically.
Wouldn't the dependents have to be
Update:
I have changed the +concurrent-detection block in qt4-1.0.tcl to
global qt4_is_concurrent
if {[variant_isset concurrent]} {
# we're asking for a concurrent install. No need to guess anything, give
the user what s/he wants
set qt4_is_concurrent 1
} else {
# check if Qt4 was
On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:54 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
I've taken my courage with 3 hands, and started working on a +concurrent
variant for qt4-mac, as a prerogative to having a ditto variant for qt5-mac
(which won't even build when qt4-mac is installed).
2 questions:
- is this a good
On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:17 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Wednesday December 10 2014 06:43:28 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Not as a solution I would feel comfortable committing, no. Variants that
change where files are installed are bad for dependent ports that need to
know where the files are.
On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:27 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
I've repeated often enough that we should never have been in this situation
of mutual exclusivity in the first place, but sadly the 2 Qt port maintainers
seem to be absent or of a completely different opinion.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
The thing is, if ever we want to allow Qt4 and Qt5 to be present at the
same time, the installation location will *have* to change, and dependent
ports will have to comply with that.
Yes, but not by using variants.
On Wednesday December 10 2014 15:50:59 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:27 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
patches_welcome
You're welcome to try to rework the Qt ports so that they can be installed
concurrently. As far as I know, the maintainers simply don't
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014, at 04:03 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
On Wednesday December 10 2014 15:50:59 Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:27 PM, René J.V. Bertin rjvber...@gmail.com wrote:
patches_welcome
You're welcome to try to rework the Qt ports so that they can be
Hello,
I've taken my courage with 3 hands, and started working on a +concurrent
variant for qt4-mac, as a prerogative to having a ditto variant for qt5-mac
(which won't even build when qt4-mac is installed).
Still with me?
So rather than using a new port, I went with a variant that is
16 matches
Mail list logo
