Le Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 08:46:47AM +0100, Rafael Sadowski a écrit :
> On Fri Nov 01, 2024 at 06:32:06PM +0100, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > i needed this to testbuild geo/qgis against qt6, and those two diffs
> > add support for a qt6 FLAVOR, vastly inspired by what was present some
> > years ago when those ports were qt4 by default and had a qt5 FLAVOR.
> >
> > the diffs are somewhat simple, with some vars i make the PLISTs
> > FLAVOR-independent. I welcome eyes on the @pkgpath/@conflicts, as both
> > FLAVORs are coinstallable without problems.
> >
> > feedback welcome.
>
> Feedback below, otherwise it builds and can also be installed both.
>
> > -REVISION = 0
> > +REVISION = 1
>
> Qt5 only REVISION bump? Othweise qt6 starts with p1.
i don't think that's a big deal, and fiddling with REVISION in an .if
block is prone to forgetting it next time REVISION needs to be bumped.
i doubt we have an example of REVISION being set in a .if block :)
> > COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc base-gcc
>
> Please move COMPILER above WANTLIB like you did it form qscintilla.
sure :)
> > +REVISION = 0
>
> Qt5 only REVISION bump? Othweise qt6 starts with p0
> (qscintilla-qt6-2.14.1p0)
same as above, i don't think for a 'new port' (well technically a new
pkgpath with a FLAVOR) it matters to start at pX.
> > +SHARED_LIBS = qscintilla2_qt6 0.0 # 15.0
>
> SHARED_LIBS should not be inside .if block. We don't do that in the
> other ports.
that's how it was before when qscintilla was a qt4/qt5 port:
https://github.com/openbsd/ports/commit/ec1b71d90099f655eac16d4ede1b9f811ea5815d#diff-178361c4e8c0715d85cf017ec8ba6e4b61e9e41e46f84a937bff10e75a7a1c9bL27
what do you prefer, having the same minor.major (having qscintilla2_qt6
start at 2.0 then) and using qscintilla2_${QTVER} ?
SHARED_LIBS = qscintilla2_${QTVER} 2.0 # 15.0
Landry
No comments:
Post a Comment