Re: request to change x11/qt5-qtbase dependencies

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Niclas Rosenvik <nros%netbsd.org@localhost> writes (in a different order :-)

>I am writing on tech-pkg since I couldn't find the email address to the
>pmc and others might have an opinion about this.

Thanks for writing in public.  I almost always prefer to have technical
discussions in public because it's available in the archives and more
people can comment.

> The qt5 packages seem to be in a constant freeze according to the
> freeze policies and the proposed change could affect its
> stability. Yes, I have tested to build qt5-qtbase with the changes and
> it builds without problems for me on NetBSD-9 x86-64.

Not really freeze, so much as a discussion of changes hear to give
people a chance to comment and/or test.  The basic issue (theoretical
description ehre, not thinking of anyone in particular) is that there
can be the situation where something could be done, and 19 people think
it's not a good idea, but 1 does, and then it happens.  This is just
about a quick consensus call to find problems before we do it, because
it is so important.

> I would like to make qt5-qtbase dependent on math/double-conversion and textproc/md4c.
> qt5-qtbase uses these libraries but does build the bundled ones currently.

Do you have an impression of whether that will fail anywhere where
qt5-qtbase builds?  Given that there's an included copy of each and I've
never heard of this before, it seems very likely to be ok.

> qt5-qtbase includes a patch to double-conversion
> "patch-src_3rdparty_double-conversion_include_double-conversion_utils.h"
> that I would like to move over to math/double-conversion thinking it
> would help double-conversion to build correctly on sh cpu:s. 

That seems entirely reasonable, and it would be great to send it
upstream as well.  In theory every bugfix to a package would be filed
upstream and in an ideal world merged so we would carry few patches.



This seems ok to me (after copying the patch to double-conversion).
Contrary opinions are definitely welcome, and in the interest of trying
to have the approval process not cause you trouble, please feel free to
go ahead in 48h if there are no objections/concerns raised.