#48184: [NEW] kf5-attica -------------------------+------------------ Reporter: mk@… | Owner: mk@… Type: submission | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: Port: kf5-attica | -------------------------+------------------ Comment (by mk@…): Replying to [comment:5 rjvbertin@…]:
`kf5-internal` and `kf5`?
Or {{{kf5-frameworks}}} and {{{kf5}}}?
a single kf5 portgroup would become more complex than necessary/good- for-it that way.
Yep.
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.
If I - perhaps - create a script for this job it would do everything programmatically. I believe that Harald's scripts also do that using KDE's dependency information.
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.
Good point. But still, if you do it on a fine-granular level you only include a few {{{kf5}}} ports instead of the whole set of 60 frameworks.
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?
I agree there. Let's see how it works out, if I find more time to deal with this submission... It's not top prio for me ATM, as you know. :)
There *is* a kdesrc script that supposedly takes care of the whole build process, no?
Yes, but I am not using that.
Hmmm, and in true hipster fashion you'd be doing that at a table in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe? ;)
At table No. 42, of course. ;) -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/48184#comment:7> MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X