Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:22:30 -0600 From: Ade Lovett <ade@lovett.com> To: Will Andrews <andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Possible change in the Qt port. Message-ID: <19991108122230.G78826@lovett.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.991108130612.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM>; from andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM on Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 01:06:12PM -0500 References: <19991108114522.D78826@lovett.com> <XFMail.991108130612.andrews@TECHNOLOGIST.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 01:06:12PM -0500, Will Andrews wrote:
> On 08-Nov-99 Ade Lovett wrote:
> >
> > Once we have this precedent, one can easily envisage a situation where
> > we have ${X11BASE}/kde, ${X11BASE}/gnome etc.. etc.. potentially
> > leading to much spammage of the third level directories under X11BASE
> > (and, indeed, LOCALBASE).
>
> I've already considered this.. and you're absolutely right. However, what else
> can we do? If nothing else, the KDE stuff should be moved to ${X11BASE}.
That would be a good start. I've been toying with the idea of doing
something similar for all the GNOME ports (though things are made a little
more complicated here by the fact that some of the low-level dependencies
such as ORBit aren't exactly X11-related).
> > Granted, it's a considerable pain for porters to hack stuff around to
> > fit in with hier(7) [at a guess, a good 75% of the patches for the GNOME
> > ports are exactly of this type], but it can (and should) be done.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly.. I'm just sick of lousy Qt implementations making it
> difficult to port Qt-based programs. Making patches (and then redoing them
> should a Makefile.in or configure script change) is a pain in the ass.
Here's a thought (for QT/QT2 at least). How about creating a qt2-config
script (similar to gtk12-config, glib12-config, gnome-config and the
rest of them) that takes a couple of simple arguments:
qt2-config --cflags
qt2-config --libs
etc.. etc..
and talk to the QT authors about getting such a script as part of the
base QT system.
Sure, until such a system is adopted (if at all) by those writing QT
code, things are likely to continue to be a pain in the ass, but it's
probably a good step in the right direction.
> Granted, it's not _THAT_ difficult, just seems quite an unnecessary
> expenditure, and can seem like a big job when you have 10 or so patches
> (like gnomelibs,xemacs,etc). I probably speak for quite a few of the
> porters around here..
Me included :) Probably a good 90% of the effort involved in bringing
up a new version of a GNOME port is hacking the patches when the
Makefile/configure files changed. However, things are made substantially
easier for GNOME with the use of 'gnome-config', the majority of the
hacks are to put most everything (except locale information) under
.../share/gnome/*, instead of just share/*
> > Hmm.. maybe some patches to portlint for hier(7) violations (against
> > the PLIST) are in order. Kinda like a "virtual Bruce" for ports..
>
> Sounds like a nice idea. I'm not coding that, though. ;)
It would certainly make for a nice medium-level project, though..
-aDe
--
Ade Lovett, Austin, TX.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991108122230.G78826>