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
