Qt 4.7 Release

[ecbrown (Eric Brown)]

I wish to suggest that MacPorts upgrade its Qt to version 4.7.0 since it has (according to Nokia) proper support for Snow Leopard.

[ecbrown (Eric Brown)]

Replying to eric.c.brown@…:

I wish to suggest that MacPorts upgrade its Qt to version 4.7.0 since it has (according to Nokia) proper support for Snow Leopard.

Although I am most interested in qt4-mac, this might also fix qt4-x11.

[michaelld (Michael Dickens)]

I've got some changes to make to how qt4* ports work, but I'll get there sometime this week for qt4-mac*. Thanks!

[dsdale24@…]

Cc Me!

[diegotheblind+macports@…]

Cc Me!

[dsdale24@…]

Replying to michaelld@…:

A friendly followup: is there any news concerning when qt4-mac updates will be available?

[michaelld (Michael Dickens)]

I've created a heavily-revised Portfile for the 4.7.0 release, and I'm right now working on integrating variants for +quartz and +x11 -- the latter is tricky, but I'm almost there (I think). Once I get a beta that works, I'll post the diffs here for others to try out.

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

Cc Me!

[mroman@…]

Cc Me!

[dsdale24@…]

qt4-mac-devel portfile

[dsdale24@…]

Why not just update the existing qt4-mac-devel now, rather than hold it up for this integration effort? I just attached a portfile.

[michaelld (Michael Dickens)]

@dsdale24: Posting a whole Portfile doesn't help me very much -- it requires me to go through 5 steps to figure out what you changed (download your Portfile, cd to current Portfile, back up current Portfile, move new one into place, do "svn diff" & hope there aren't too many changes). Please post a "diff -u" or "svn diff" instead next time -- that requires just 1 step for me to see what you changed.

The reason I've been working towards an integrated port, with as many changes as possible, is: because it takes so !@#$ long to compile Qt4 in the first place, I don't want anyone (including myself) to be forced to compile any more often than absolutely necessary. Upgrading from 4.6.3 to 4.7.0 might require a rev-bump to dependent ports (since the library name might change enough), which is pretty involved on my part as well as for the end-user. Thus, I want to get it right the first time, as much as possible, and also incorporate as many changes as possible into a single upgrade, for a single really big upgrade.

That said, I've come to the conclusion that the MP user community will be better off served if I do this as a 2-step process: (1) upgrade qt4 to 4.7.0, with variant +quartz but not allowing -quartz yet, and with other changes in preparation for adding in the +x11 variant; then (2) add in the +x11 stuff. Adding in +x11 will not require a rev bump for anyone who just wants to use the +quartz variant, and thus can be done stealthily.

So, that's what I'm working on. It involves remaking patches in the style of what the +x11 variant will require, which is what I'm doing right now. Life keeps getting in the way of me finishing this, but it will happen; just be patient.

[dsdale24@…]

Replying to michaelld@…:

@dsdale24: Posting a whole Portfile doesn't help me very much -- it requires me to go through 5 steps to figure out what you changed (download your Portfile, cd to current Portfile, back up current Portfile, move new one into place, do "svn diff" & hope there aren't too many changes). Please post a "diff -u" or "svn diff" instead next time -- that requires just 1 step for me to see what you changed.

I don't understand why you can't just run diff yourself to see what changed. I didn't post the port file for you, I already knew you were working in a different direction. I posted it for anyone else who needs qt-4.7 right away.

[michaelld (Michael Dickens)]

Before I was a MP developer, I also posted straight-up Portfiles sometimes. I was told to post diffs instead, and I had the same reaction as you do: it is -just- a relatively simple 5 step process to get the diffs, so what's the big deal? What you write is true all around, but you are not thinking of how busy we as MP developer are -- not just with MP but with the rest of our lives; I, at least, volunteer my time and effort to make MP a better system and product (I assume most other MP developers do too). Given the number of Portfiles and tickets I work with, taking the 2-3 minutes to check out someone else's changes via the 5 steps -really- adds up. I'd rather complain for 2-3 minutes once than to have to check out all of the non-diff Portfiles.

OTOH, if you & everyone else post just a diff, anyone can quickly view it and see what you changed and if it's worth further attention -- a simple, quick 1 step process on -our- part. Just about anyone who understands how to manipulate a Portfile can do "patch -p0 < ~/Downloads/patch-foo-Portfile.diff" just as easily as "mv ~/Downloads/foo-Portfile ./Portfile". Yes, it takes another step on -your- part to do the diff, but it makes everyone else's life easier when we just just a simple diff to work with.

As for your second point (that it's not for me): Maybe so, but I'm the owner of this ticket and port, so, yes, it is for me too.

Think about it, please. I'm not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful, just pragmatic given my almost-never ending work-queue & knowing that other MP developers are in a similar situation.

[dsdale24@…]

I've been posting full portfiles for a while, you are the first person to complain. Believe it or not, some developers prefer full portfiles. As a user, I definitely prefer to download the full portfile rather than have to apply a patch.

Here's a thought experiment: would it have taken more time for you to download the portfile and run diff (thats two steps, not five) than it took you to compose your last two responses? It took me 40 seconds.

--- /opt/local/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/release/ports/aqua/qt4-mac-devel/Portfile2010-08-19 11:00:50.000000000 -0400
+++ Portfile    2010-10-13 10:26:53.000000000 -0400
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
 set select_name     ${select_group}-${select_branch}
 
 name                ${select_name}
-version             4.7.0-beta2
+version             4.7.0
 revision            2
 categories          aqua
 platforms           macosx
@@ -26,9 +26,9 @@
 
 master_sites        trolltech
 distname            qt-everywhere-opensource-src-${version}
-checksums           md5     1449443c2d33ab9fefbd37b7104d0cdf \
-                    sha1    7906280feafd7c4bb4a9653e4f5988dcd3be9b54 \
-                    rmd160  029f0c37fdbb3c36ecffc1e77da403607a055a39
+checksums           md5     3a2f25b9b115037277f4fb759194a7a5 \
+                    sha1    a5796c8f468c8f59249e5c696f913864c979f411 \
+                    rmd160  3e9c0f0d9843b5c03ad4bd6193aff98531ee0746
 
 depends_build       port:pkgconfig

[mf2k (Frank Schima)]

I certainly prefer diffs and generally point that out. I believe this is a common sentiment among other Macports committers. It saves us time.

[michaelld (Michael Dickens)]

@dsdale24: Trying to read through your above posting with patch takes me significant time because you didn't use WikiFormatting; so, sure, doing the portfile & diff is much easier in this case. OTOH, if you either used WikiFormatting or, even better, just attached the Portfile.diff to this ticket, I could quickly and easily see what changes you made (in a few seconds, as it turns out), and the minutes spent answering and discussing this with you would never have had to come to pass. Once I get the formatting correct, I see that all you did was update the checksums and version -- this issues was way too much work for me for such simple changes.

How about we agree that each MP developer can have his/her own unique preference on this issue, and that we otherwise disagree on the easiest method of communicating file differences.

[michaelld (Michael Dickens)]

Updated in r72571. Sorry it took so long; lots of dependencies to check over & not enough time in the day :)

[ecbrown (Eric Brown)]

Hi Michael, Thanks for your hard work. It is very much appreciated.