On Fri Jul 07, 2017 at 10:03:56PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 09:14:01PM +0200, Rafael Sadowski wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > after a long journey with all qca2 consumers, I'm happy to publish this
> > diff. First of all the security/qca2 changelog part:
> >
> > - Update from 2.0.3 to 2.1.3.
> > - Transform security/{qca-ossl,qca-gnupg} in one security/qca2 port with
> > MULTI_PACKAGES -ossl and -gnupg.
> > - rRename PKGNAME from qca2 to qca2-qt4 (qca2-qt5 is in the pipeline)
> > - Disable SSL2 and SSL3 by default!
> > - "qt42 suffix and no more qca2
> > - Improve QcaConfig and remove alle unnecessary patches.
> > - Add @conflict and @pkgpath into the FLAVORS. Ok? (final pkg_add -u
> > test will follow)
>
> That's a lot of churn - does it all come from upstream or that's a local
> customisation ? Ie will the diffs be commited upstream once someone
> tells them they dont build against newer qca2 ?
>
What do you mean with churn? I think, only one port in place of tree is
a good idea. I renamed share lib and pkgname to avoid conflicts with
security/qca (qca1) and upcoming qca2-qt5. The QcaConfig extension was
necessary to patch and modify less the consumers.
But after your e-mail I grep for security/qca and there are no consumers.
New idea because we can get rid of qca1:
- remove the old security/qca.
- update qca from 2.0.3 to 2.1.3. (with MULTI_PACKAGES to remove
security/{qca-ossl,qca-gnupg}
- don't remove pkgname. qca2 is okay
- don't prefix qca with "-qt4" and don't rename qca to qca2 as it is
currently. All consumers expect libqca and for Qt5 libqca-qt5. FreeBSD
makes it so and I think, that's the bast way.
Opinions?
> Oh, and i think ports install manpages in man/ and not under share/man,
> you should fix qca.
Oh! Thanks fixed.
