From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 24 13:52:07 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@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 6623E1345042 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 13:52:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adridg@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp02.mail.online.nl (smtp02.mail.online.nl [194.134.25.72]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8402874A3 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 13:52:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adridg@freebsd.org) Received: from beastie.bionicmutton.org (s55969a9e.adsl.online.nl [85.150.154.158]) by smtp02.mail.online.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AE81A0076 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2018 14:51:59 +0100 (CET) From: Adriaan de Groot To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: category qt? Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 14:51:59 +0100 Message-ID: <3474310.DPmmpGpFb9@beastie.bionicmutton.org> Organization: FreeBSD In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2999108.fqq9MUTMxn"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C8402874A3 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.92 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.994,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.932,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:5390, ipnet:194.134.0.0/16, country:NL]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.993,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2018 13:52:07 -0000 --nextPart2999108.fqq9MUTMxn Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Monday, 24 December 2018 13:00:02 CET freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org wrote: > > The qt* ports spreads around in the whole portstree. > > > > It is reasonable to concentrate all these ports in a qt category? I > > think it is easier to find (and also easier to maintain). > > Indeed it is a bit annoying for me when I have to update qt* ports. > I don't use portmaster or similar (I don't like them): I wrote my own > utility, but it has still some issues, such as this one. I guess having > all the qt* ports in the same category would help. You might argue that all (?) the Qt ports are libraries and development tools, and so could live in the devel/ category. Or along other lines, that the split of Qt into a bunch of separate packages is superfluous and they should be merged (like gtk3, which is one big port -- I don't know if this is a useful functional analogy though). But what makes Qt special in this regard? (One answer I'll accept is "the ports need to be updated in a coordinated fashion"). The reason (for instance) that two of the Qt5 ports live in textproc/ is .. that they're concerned with doing text processing. That functional-categorization in the ports tree has been there since always. I guess it depends on the original post: "easier to find" for what? If you're calling for a *virtual* category (like KDE ports have), that makes immediate sense to me (but would leave the ports scattered around the ports tree). [ade] --nextPart2999108.fqq9MUTMxn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABEIAB0WIQTVFBoRsP760fy+Jisy7lRaPghTTwUCXCDkfwAKCRAy7lRaPghT T9VHAP4sLSrzbmCuKqM8VQyO4Y/NTMpXOvU0MrIKd428HkBtBQD8D9LlQB1oRlot 5BCkpA2CMH93uJK+b8VlECL1eOl+A+w= =5ytG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2999108.fqq9MUTMxn--