On Thu Mar 14, 2024 at 09:10:41PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski via ports wrote:
> On Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 08:56:27AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > Le Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:35:39PM +0100, Rafael Sadowski a écrit :
> > > On Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 09:12:49AM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > > > Le Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:03:17AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski a écrit :
> > > > > OK to import qca-qt6-2.3.8? It's the same as security/qca-qt5, but with
> > > > > Qt6 enabled and Qt5 disabled. No conflicts with qt5 and qt6.
> > > >
> > > > in that case, wouldnt it be better/simpler to multipackage qca into -qt5
> > > > and -qt6 and only build it once ? no real opinion, rather thinking out
> > > > loud..
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback. I have already evaluate these options and have
> > > come to the following 2 1/2 points:
> > >
> > > - I don't like to have a Qt6 port in a directory that contains qt5.
> > > - I don't like the multipackage pattern a lot. For me qca-qt6 is much
> > > simpler with the same goal.
> >
> > fair point, your call. not a big deal since it builds quite fast..
> >
>
> Looking for a post-lock OK to import.
>
ping
No comments:
Post a Comment