Marcus Calhoun-Lopez wrote: > A while back, I tried to create a small subport of qt5-mac to install Qt3D > (see #48006).
Qt3D is now a full (and quite small) component of Qt 5.5.0 , small enough to be built along with the brunt of Qt. > I now have a Portfile that installs all of the individual components of Qt > 5 as separate installations. > It is 1321 lines long and has 33 subports. > > It have not run into any problems yet, but I wanted to seek feedback if > this too far from best practices to be viable. I have considered this myself, but never found a sufficient reason to do a full split that would justify the additional overhead and complexity that comes partly from the inter-component dependencies (my own qt5-kde Portfile is 1332 lines long but also caters to 10.6 users and has post-destroot features I copied from qt4-mac). It could make sense to split off a few less commonly used components that have disproportionate build requirements. I've done that with QtWebengine because it's huge and was new in 5.4.2, but QtWebkit could be a candidate too. The rest can just as well continue to be built like it is in Qt4. People installing only a small handful of Qt5 dependent ports may well not need a full Qt5 install, and would benefit from a fine-grained control over what is installed. But once KF5 ports start appearing users who install them will probably end up with a (more or less) full install anyway. And if a sufficiently large proportion of users install a more or less complete Qt install, splitting the Qt5 port up completely becomes counter-productive in my opinion. I already mentioned the additional overhead and complexity; that would include things like switching versions or variants via `port de/activate` which become a big hassle (imagine "swapping" 33 ports instead of 1 or 2 ...) R _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
