[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       macports-dev
Subject:    Re: wxWidgets vs. wxWidgets-devel: a proposal
From:       Kuba Ober <kuba () mareimbrium ! org>
Date:       2012-09-26 18:47:34
Message-ID: B082262E-B9E5-41A5-AD7F-7C63E20A22F9 () mareimbrium ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 13:38, Andrea D'Amore wrote:
> 
> > > 2. Even for projects that support both 2.8 and 2.9, like, say wxMaxima, the \
> > > users may want to compile it for 64 bits -- IMHO such support should be \
> > > default. It's a bit irksome when simply installing wxMaxima pulls in a \
> > > bazillion universal ports.
> > 
> > There are variants for that, you are not forced to build +universal, are you?
> 
> Yes, you're forced to build universal, because wxWidgets 2.8 requires 32-bit, so it \
> requires its dependencies to be 32-bit; when build_arch is x86_64 that means \
> MacPorts will rebuild the dependencies universal. 
> I said I would stay out of the naming debate, but:
> 
> -devel ports are supposed to be for users who want to experience the leading edge \
> of development and try out new things before they're finalized. It should not be \
> necessary for users to install a -devel port in order to get basic functionality, \
> as is currently required in many cases for wxWidgets. 
> [...]
> 
> If cathedrals are going to continue to be the release strategy of the wxWidgets \
> developers, MacPorts might be wise to try to prepare for similar situations in the \
> future, by using numbered wxWidgets ports, and making them simultaneously \
> installable, so that each port can declare a dependency on whichever version of \
> wxWidgets it works with and it does not need to affect other ports. 
> Or, if there are no ports that require wxWidgets earlier than 2.9, or if they can \
> be easily patched to support 2.9, then we could update the main wxWidgets port to \
> the current 2.9 release and forget about 2.8 already. 
> Let's just do something that results in users on current OS X being able to install \
> the ports they want without fuss.

I think we realistically need wxWidgets-devel to be installable in parallel with \
wxWidgets. If someone decides to rename them wxWidgets28 and wxWidgets29, like IMHO \
they should be named, then that's even better, but I don't care about that at the \
moment.

For now I'll try and get all the ports that use wxWidgets and support 2.9 to:

1. Have an optional wxWidgets-devel variant.
2. Choose that variant by default if wxWidgets-devel is installed, as currently it \
implies that wxWidgets 2.8 is not installed.

Once wxWidgets-devel can coexist with wxWidgets, we can get rid of #2 so that users \
have a full choice of what variant is used by any port that claims to support both.

Cheers, Kuba

_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]