#48184: [NEW] kf5-attica -------------------------+---------------------- Reporter: mk@… | Owner: mk@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: kf5-attica | -------------------------+---------------------- Comment (by rjvbertin@…): Replying to [comment:4 mk@…]:
Alternatively I could create two port groups one called {{{kf5-framework}}} and the other {{{kf5-project}}}. I guess that needs discussion on the dev-ML...
`kf5-internal` and `kf5`? Not that the Qt portgroups don't have a variable that indicates whether the port itself is building (= they do) ... but I think a single kf5 portgroup would become more complex than necessary /good-for-it that way.
... I'd strongly advise to use your KDE/CI experience to coerce that
script into a portfile.
For testing I have half-automatically created about 20 port files now.
Of course I will come up with some helper scripts to create the required portfiles. See [https://github.com/haraldF/homebrew-kf5 Haralf Fernengel's HB github repo]!. There's always the possibility to generate a slew of subports programmatically, but that would make sense only if all those subports have the same dependencies.
Yes, there is, but the subset is built up of all those little KF5-ports. Every project has its own subset depending on its specific requirements.
That the subset is built up out of a trazillion KF5 morsels isn't an issue as long as there's a script (like I understand there is) that takes care of building them as if they were a whole. That each KF5 "client" application depends on its own individual subset isn't an issue either. Declaring a dependency on `port:kf5` doesn't mean you have to link in all those frameworks (just like depending on `port:qt5-mac` doesn't mean you link with all Qt components. Again, suppose it turns out that you end up installing just about all KF5 frameworks when you actually want to install systemsettings5, kate, konsole, KDevelop, KDE PIM, kdesvn and digiKam (just to name the ones I use regularly). In that case, isn't it much easier to have only a single port they need to depend on? There *is* a kdesrc script that supposedly takes care of the whole build process, no?
Well, in the end I could create meta-ports which might perhaps build the individual tiers of the KF5 frameworks.
Hmmm, and in true hipster fashion you'd be doing that at a table in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe? ;) -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/48184#comment:5> MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X