Why delete KDE3 ports?

Mikhail T. mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com
Wed Jan 9 14:07:29 UTC 2013

On 08.01.2013 19:02, Jakub Lach wrote:
> I'm on the fence. It's true, that there is no low-print feature complete
> equivalent for KDE3.
Worse, KDE4 is not only much heavier (which could've been acceptable). 
It is also not compatible -- people like myself, who customized their 
desktops with additional menus, who created knotes, etc. will have to 
redo all of their settings. KDE4, as built, is not even going to look 
under the ~/.kde. Though it can be compiled to consider the old 
directory, the format/syntax for many of the config-files has changed -- 
and there is no "upgrade path".
> On the other hand, if nobody wants to maintain Trinity, well
> it should be letten go, as sooner or later there will be problems.
Before becoming "maintained", Trinity first needs to be ported -- a 
substantial effort, because, for example, the project switched to its 
own verstion Qt (Trinity Qt). All classes have been renamed from Qfoo to 

This can all be handled, but meanwhile, until there ARE actual problems, 
leave the ports alone, please.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list