#45194: ndmanager: Make port obsolete ------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: nicos@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: request | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: ndmanager | ------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment (by FlorianFranzen@…): I don't really see the reason why we even have a ndmanager2 port. The new version of ndmanager does not introduce any new features or incompatibilities between versions. or saved files. I don't think a change in dependencies from qt3 to qt4 really justifies a new portsfile. Just to emphasize my point: Macports is the only package manager that offers a ndmanager2 package. Can we not just go ahead and rename ndmanger2 to ndmanager instead? -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45194#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X

#45194: ndmanager: Make port obsolete --------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: nicos@… | Owner: FlorianFranzen@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: ndmanager | --------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by nicos@…): I agree that a simple upgrade could be ideal, but the issue is in the dependencies. Qt3 and qt4-mac are conflicting, so that they cannot be installed together. A simple upgrade of the port would therefore not work directly because of the conflict. The separate ports are meant to provide a smoother transition, and to inform users of the consequences of the upgrade, as they may lose other programs in the process. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45194#comment:3> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X

#45194: ndmanager: Make port obsolete --------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: nicos@… | Owner: FlorianFranzen@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: ndmanager | --------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by cal@…): This might be a use case for the so-called [PortfileRecipes#deactivatehack deactivate hack]. Note that the hack would have to be added to the port that actually conflicts with qt3, which would be qt4-mac. I'm not sure that's what we want. I agree keeping around a qt3 version of ndmanager is pointless though. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45194#comment:5> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X

#45194: ndmanager: Make port obsolete --------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: nicos@… | Owner: FlorianFranzen@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: haspatch Port: ndmanager | --------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by nicos@…): I don't really want to force changes on qt4-mac, a port which is complicated enough as is. Furthermore, there is also a dependency to kde3, so that another deactivate hack would have to be used, added to the fact that this would imply automatic deactivation, which could break other ports. Replying to [comment:6 FlorianFranzen@…]:

I guess there is now way for us to rename ndmanger2 to ndamanger at a later point either without causing conflicts for the people that have not updated in a while.

I am just wondering what kind of plans you have after removing kde3 and as a consequence ndmanager from macports for ports like this. Would we just stick with ndmanger2 then?

As you said, there could always be a conflict for people who did not update. For this reason, there a policy in Macports that after one year ports can be removed. We could therefore stick with ndmanager2 for now on, or possibly rename back ndmanager after some time, even though this would imply a transfer by users again. Since there seem to be an agreement on the approach, I will commit the change shortly. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45194#comment:7> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X