Re: editors/ghostwriter 24.12.0 versus x11/kde5

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:05:23 +0100
Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On 02/01/25 13:57, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 08:41:27 +0100
> > Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 02/01/25 01:38, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 19:50:50 +0100
> >>> Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Don't see a good reason to force everyone to use an old version.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway the ports tree is open source, nothing stops anyone from
> >>>> proposing (with himself as maintainer) a new port for the old version
> >>>> calling it "ghostwriter-qt5" or whatever.
> >>>
> >>> Or flavorizing with qt5/kf5 version alone stick with latest possible
> >>> (older than ones for qt6/kf6) version until KDE6 becomes default
> >>> on ports.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure putting VERSION under flavors control is
> >> supported/suggested. Would make managing the port quite more complicated
> >> anyway.
> > 
> > Yes. Is complicated.
> > 
> > For example, mail/claws-mail is ver. 3.21.0 for Gtk2 and 4.3.0 for Gtk3.
> > This is because upstream is deveoping Gtk2 version on 3.x branch and
> > Gtk3 version on 4.x branch.
> > 
> > And here, I've mis-remembered. It was using OPTION, not FLAVOR.
> > 
> >    https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/mail/claws-mail/Makefile
> >    https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/mail/claws-mail/Makefile.claws
> >    https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/mail/claws-mail/Makefile.ver
> > 
> > But there is no reason (putting aside the complexities like above) that
> > FLAVOR cannot do the same thing, just technically, though.
> > 
> > 
> >> A separate port for the older version would be more reasonable, the name
> >> I suggested for such a port it is also suboptimal. The name should have
> >> at least an indication this is an old version.
> > 
> > Exactly. It would be simpler. Using FLAVOR/OPTION is just another
> > possibility.
> > 
> 
> A flavor is an option that would force me to be the maintainer of an 
> outdated software, something I'm not willing to do.
> 
> So another port with a separate maintainer is the only way to go.
> 
> While technically it would be possible to have separate MAINTAINER 
> values for flavors, it would be quite difficult to draw the lines in 
> relation to responsibilities in case of problems.

Agreed. I don't intend to force anyone anything. Just proposing
different possibilities for the future (in mail archives to be
searched).

This is mostly because I've wondered which way to go, whether any better
way exist or not, when I've filed Bug 276165 [1]. There was multiple
ways to go, each had Pros and Cons, and finally chosen the one I've
filed.

Anyway, I'm currently not using editors/ghostwriter (as I don't want
any ports depending on www/qt[5|6]-webengine to be newly installed),
so doing fork or not would be on whom actually want to do and maintain.

And why I've popped in this discussion is because I've lost qterminal
as of conflicts (I've overlooked the switch to qt6 and addition of kf6
dependencies, thus, missed to lock it. And reverting after that could
cause new dependency hell). I've switched back to x11/mate-terminal now,
as I've found the workaround when it failed to build.

[1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=276165

Regards.

> 
> -- 
> Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
> 


-- 
Tomoaki AOKI    <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>