x11-wm/xwmm [WAS: Possibly unbuildable ports reminder]

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Friday 14 May 2004 11:20 am, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Michael C. Shultz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > ===>   xwmm-0.7_1 depends on shared library: qt2.4 - not found
> > ===>    Verifying install for qt2.4 in /usr/ports/x11-toolkits/qt23
> > ===>  Vulnerability check disabled
> >
> >                       NOTICE
> >
> > You have QT3 files installed!  Installing this port
> > will result in conflicts between QT3 and QT2!
> > *** Error code 1
> >
> > Stop in /speed/usr.ports/x11-toolkits/qt23.
> > *** Error code 1
> >
> > Stop in /speed/usr.ports/x11-wm/xwmm.
> > mike:/usr/ports/x11-wm/xwmm>
> >
> >
> > My question is, should a PR be submitted requesting this port be
> > dropped? I know I don't want QT2 on my system and assume most others
> > feel the same way. If a PR is appropriate to request this port be
> > dropped I'll be happy to submit it.
>
> This would be a request to drop x11-toolkits/qt23 and dependent
> ports, which you should discuss on kde@ first. Or, you could submit
> a list of affected ports that are old and should be marked
> deprecated. As you can see, the port builds fine on architectures
> != alpha.


I was not clear in my initial post. Sorry. I had only in mind
dropping x11-wm/xwmm, it didn't even occur to me to go after all of
qt23 and dependent apps!

Now that idea is brought up, it does seem like a good one. I don't
follow the kde-ports mail list so probably I am not the best one to
handle asking them what they think. If no one else wants to tackle
this, I'll give it my best shot.  I do want to monitor their mail
list for a few days first.

The only thing I really intended to do was clear up one little problem
reported at

http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/errorlogs/ports@freebsd.org.html

So I am going ahead and submitting a PR to eliminate x11-wm/xwmm
unless anyone has an objection.