On Tuesday, September 06, 2016 10:30:31 PM Tobias C. Berner wrote: > On 6 September 2016 at 11:03, Adriaan de Groot <[email protected]> wrote: > > - Those ports often have PORTNAME set, to just * (without the -kde4) and > > PKGNAMESUFFIX set to -kde4 > > That seems sensible, also the DISTFILES magic works then and does not > require it to be manually set. > > > - Ports that use KDE Frameworks 5 as a platform are often found in .. > > PKGNAMESUFFIX set to -kf5 > > The rule however should probably be to avoid these suffixes whenever > possible, > unless we do the thing for another thread you mention below...
That seems sensible except that you also point out that we'll have to have - kf5 and -kde4 versions of many things in ports for a little while, just to enable migration and UPDATING. So we would end up with what, <foo> -> <foo>- kde4 for a while (to allow for graceful moving), then adding <foo> which is the newer version? Seems like a way to make things take extra long. Or do you mean <foo> should be the preferred <foo>, and we can add <foo>-kf5, wait while that settles, and then do a <foo> -> <foo>-kde4 and <foo>-kf5 -> <foo> renaming at once to swap out the preferred version? I don't know enough abouts ports-procedures to know what's preferable. Personally I prefer less moving and renaming, which suggests <foo>-kde4 and <foo>-kf5 from the start. > > not KDE5). But applications shouldn't necessarily say they are "for KDE"; > > If the port is part of the KDE Applications release cycle, I think "KDE" > can stay. > I think gnome's applications do also carry a "GNOME" in their COMMENT from > a quick grep. > But I agree, that it should not carry a version in general. OK. That's another tidying-step to do at some point (soon-ish). > > Generally speaking, we won't have a -kf5 *and* a -kde4 version of a single > > port (that's a discussion for another thread). > > Which we need to have before we can think of updating KDE Applications in > ports > to anything even nearly recent. Hm. That makes things extra-difficult, since it sounds like "everything is blocked" again, and plasma5/ branch is enough of a bear as it is. > > Does this make sense as a general description of how we name ports and > > packages? (If so, it should go into our area51 developer bits on techbase > > or > > on our site). > > maybe also on the FreeBSD wiki? https://wiki.freebsd.org/KDE as a new item > under "Team best practices"? Just to give you more options to think about ^^ > But as always, do what you think fits best :) I'd prefer to have fewer places to maintain, rather than more. Hence my desire, ages ago, to move most of freebsd.kde.org to techbase, or to consolidate the other way and produce a nice f.k.o and drop the techbase bits. [ade]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
