Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/x11/qt4-libs

[Frédéric Fauberteau <triaxx%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Le 03/10/2023 à 00:05, Greg Troxel a écrit :
> Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> writes:
>
> > Frédéric Fauberteau <triaxx%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> >
> > > diff -r1.56 Makefile.common
> > > 22c22,24
> > > < BROKEN_ON_PLATFORM=   Darwin-*-aarch64
> > > ---
> > > > .if ${OPSYS_VERSION} >= 130000
> > > > NOT_FOR_PLATFORM+=    Darwin-*-*
> > > > .endif
> >
> > I don't agree with NOT_FOR.  I don't see any fundamental reason why qt4
> > could not be made to work, using some interfaces.  The fact that the
> > platform withdrew an interface that was used previously is not enough.
> > NetBSD doesn't have those interfaces, and qt4 works.  What's really
> > going on is that qt4 is not maintained and thus hasn't adapted, and
> > won't.  I bet qt5 and qt6 either work or will be made to work.
> >
> > NOT_FOR_PLATFORM is supposed to be about things where it fundamentally
> > does not make sense, and there I would expect ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM much
> > more often, to limit to FooOS when the program is "utility to manipulate
> > the bar interface which is only present on FooOS".
> >
> > But if it is only troubled on >= 13, then indeed limiting to that is good.
>
> Also: You seem to have a desire for NOT_FOR rather than BROKEN_ON.
> Functionally, these do the same thing.  Why do you think it's important
> to move to NOT_FOR vs BROKEN_ON?  (I have explained why I think
> BROKEN_ON is correct.)

No, BROKEN_ON is a good option.