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
