On 2015-10-29 17:05, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> This special layout is something that René has been working on for
> months, but nobody looked into his work for a very long time (and
> nobody felt the pressing need to fix the situation with conflicting
> Qt4 and Qt5).
This is true what you say about reviewing. I stuck with Qt4 only as long
as the Qt versions conflicted.
I definitely don't want to discredit the work of René and others for
getting Qt4 and Qt5 along. Thank you for working on this!
> When 10.11 came out (where Qt 4 no longer worked), the
> switch to Qt 5 and moving Qt 4 away suddenly had to be done in a
> hurry, so the maintainer decided for the easier path to simply put
> everything under the same prefix.
I understand that some of these parts conflict in filename, but the
files I mentioned do not. They can co-exist in ${prefix}/lib/pkgconfig/
or ${prefix}/share/cmake/ (Qt* for qt4 and Qt5* for qt5). I see no
reason to move these files.
> Qt4 and Qt5 are maintained by different people which complicates matters a
> bit.
>
> I still hope that the idea is to eventually:
> - put different things under appropriate prefixes (like the three
> examples mentioned above)
> - unify paths for Qt 4 and Qt 5 (the is no need to use a "-mac" postfix)
>
> Any port than requires Qt should include one of the two qt portgroups
> that sets all the necessary variables, so that even if Qt 4/5 layout
> changes again, it should be a simple matter of a revbump of
> dependents.
That is correct for use of Qt by dependent ports. However, if a user
wants to compile software from source which is not yet provided in a
port (or builds their own version for development), manually setting up
PKG_CONFIG_PATH and/or CMAKE_MODULE_PATH is cumbersome.
Rainer
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
