category qt?

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Monday, 24 December 2018 13:00:02 CET freebsd-ports-request at 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]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20181224/3180ffb4/attachment.sig>