Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 02:33:26 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Sean Bruno <sbruno@freebsd.org> Cc: yuri@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r471061 - head/audio/qjackctl Message-ID: <20180529023326.GA20771@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <d42ac45a-2357-630a-8a0d-6864f271d4a9@freebsd.org> References: <201805281845.w4SIj8bO065379@repo.freebsd.org> <985846ee-dce7-d8f1-2813-0a28bc36217e@freebsd.org> <a328123e-8f85-6d68-1d9d-b7454b53fe25@freebsd.org> <5dddd567-3439-caa3-56d0-665a40bdbf35@freebsd.org> <77503afc-b631-ac32-a87b-c8a28e0bb2ab@freebsd.org> <d42ac45a-2357-630a-8a0d-6864f271d4a9@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 01:35:41PM -0600, Sean Bruno wrote: > On 05/28/18 13:11, Yuri wrote: > ... > > If some app doesn't support Qt4, you should complain to that app, IMO. > > Your situation sounds like a fringe case that most users don't care > > about. > > But, this app DOES support QT4. Until this change was made, it ran and > built just fine. It also builds and runs just fine with QT5, so I don't > have any objection to the default of QT5. Defaulting to QT5 seems very > sensible to me. That's exactly the right approach here: leave both options, let the user choose. I'm still defaulting my ports to Qt4 (at least trying to), and sometimes even provide -qt4 as a separate port. I'm perfectly happy with Qt4, less happy with Qt5, and see no need to use Qt5. But I'm just as happy with Qt5 being default *as long as* I can tell the port that I want Qt4 instead. Removing working option just because it's not useful for you Yuri is not your best act here, esp. after you've been explicitly asked for it. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180529023326.GA20771>