Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #63979, comment 2


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 17, 2021, 10:51:40 AM (3 years ago)
Author:
RJVB (René Bertin)
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #63979, comment 2

    initial v1  
    44- The `epoch` of the Qt4 (v2.2.1) subports *is* changed, and the *upgrade* of their version (in the previous commit of this port) is REVERTED.
    55
     6Here's the relevant hunk of the change:
     7{{{
     8@@ -11,10 +10,21 @@ subport ${name}-qt5     {}
     9 
     10 if {[string match "${name}-qt5*" ${subport}]} {
     11     PortGroup           qt5 1.0
     12-    set Qt_Major        5
     13+    set Qt_Major        qt5
     14+    version             2.3.4
     15+    checksums           rmd160  88589c5b4f2a87cb048b5a90ff39256ec996fdb1 \
     16+                        sha256  6b695881a7e3fd95f73aaee6eaeab96f6ad17e515e9c2b3d4b3272d7862ff5c4 \
     17+                        size    737072
     18 } else {
     19     PortGroup           qt4 1.0
     20-    set Qt_Major        4
     21+    set Qt_Major        qt4
     22+    # last release with Qt4 support:
     23+    version             2.2.1
     24+    # set the epoch because we've had to downgrade
     25+    epoch               202111
     26+    checksums           rmd160  dddc3cf240dc5424b9df13fc1bf41c8e04f3b814 \
     27+                        sha256  d716d2d8e3ed8d95bbdb061f03081d7d032206f746a30a4d29d72196f50e7b02 \
     28+                        size    691676
     29 }
     30 # best included after the required Qt PG
     31 PortGroup               cmake 1.1
     32}}}
     33
    634`port upgrade qca` worked just fine for me (idem for `qca-ossl` and the other Qt4 subports). There was no reason to touch the revision of the Qt5 subports. Either they built before and would now build to exactly the same binaries, or they didn't build because of missing headers (cf #63980) and should now build. There's long-standing precedence of not revbumping (Qt5) ports in this scenario.