From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Tue May 29 05:14:28 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@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 59A69EE1A7A; Tue, 29 May 2018 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (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 066B077366; Tue, 29 May 2018 05:14:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id E98494029; Tue, 29 May 2018 05:14:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 05:14:27 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Yuri Cc: Sean Bruno , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r471061 - head/audio/qjackctl Message-ID: <20180529051427.GA64209@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> <20180529023326.GA20771@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-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 05:14:28 -0000 On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 09:34:47PM -0700, Yuri wrote: > On 05/28/18 19:33, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > 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. > > You didn't show that sticking to Qt4 is specifically useful for anybody > for valid reasons though. You only stated your dislike of Qt5 without > reasons. This was not my point. In fact, I've explicitly said that I don't mind Qt5 being the default, but please keep Qt4 one. > Please show that switch of the app to Qt5 actually harms anybody, causes > them loss of time, functionality, pain or suffering, or any other > adverse consequences. Again, you're missing the point, which is being: application supports building against Qt4. Some people prefer it, yet you've removed the option. Sure, OK, let's make Qt5 the default, but Qt4 should still be available as long as application supports it. ./danfe