From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Tue May 29 02:33:27 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D80DF7A072; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:33:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1CBE71343; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:33:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id B9BB71979; Tue, 29 May 2018 02:33:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 02:33:26 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Sean Bruno 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> References: <201805281845.w4SIj8bO065379@repo.freebsd.org> <985846ee-dce7-d8f1-2813-0a28bc36217e@freebsd.org> <5dddd567-3439-caa3-56d0-665a40bdbf35@freebsd.org> <77503afc-b631-ac32-a87b-c8a28e0bb2ab@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 02:33:27 -0000 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