Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 12:11:00 -0700 From: Yuri <yuri@freebsd.org> To: Sean Bruno <sbruno@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: <77503afc-b631-ac32-a87b-c8a28e0bb2ab@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5dddd567-3439-caa3-56d0-665a40bdbf35@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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/28/18 12:02, Sean Bruno wrote: > The problem I am describing is that*if* I am using applications that > are QT4 only, this change now forces me too build QT5 to get this one > port built. > > Maybe its better to leave QT4 in place but make QT5 the default? I made such changes before (deprecate Qt4) elsewhere and nobody complained. It's like if some package is updated from mypkg-4.0 to mypkg-5.0, the port changes to mypkg-5.0, and the users have to update. The ports system doesn't provide a way to stay with mypkg-4.0. Why Qt should be different? It has to deprecate Qt4 at some point. Qt4 hasn't been shown to provide any benefit, generally. 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. Yuri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?77503afc-b631-ac32-a87b-c8a28e0bb2ab>