svn commit: r471061 - head/audio/qjackctl

[Sean Bruno]

On 05/28/18 13:11, Yuri wrote:
> 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.

I didn't know I was complaining.  I thought I was asking about a change
you made and trying to engage in a civil conversation about it.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
This happens quite a lot actually.  I don't find this argument valid.

Is there information from Portmgr or the team that maintains/works on QT
saying that QT4 is going to be deprecated?  I couldn't find one if it
exists.

> 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.
> 
> 
But, this app DOES support QT4.  Until this change was made, it ran and
built just fine.  It also builds and runs just fine with QT5, so I don't
have any objection to the default of QT5.  Defaulting to QT5 seems very
sensible to me.

sean

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20180528/de5e38c9/attachment.sig>