Can we go forward?

• Use DESC commited in https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=7e9e1b6c9e710d094c9f0d5707a673dbe07cb2af
• I request permission to become a maintainer for this port

Small fixes in options.

Vlad, there is no need in making option for everything. Instead, try to minimize list of options when creating ports. Group similar functionality under single option (or use RADIO/MULTI etc), don't make options for features that require light or common dependencies, especially if a feature does not need deps at all. Sometimes having too many options is worst than having no options.
And of course these are not 100% strict rules.

Create PR: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=278718

Upstream committed to master branch all fixes based on our patches - use this commit instead of local patches.

In D41863#982973, @arrowd wrote:

If the -DPipeWire_FOUND=NO approach worked, update the diff

If the -DPipeWire_FOUND=NO approach worked, update the diff

ping

In D41863#964975, @arrowd wrote:

Does just passing -DPipeWire_FOUND=NO to CMake work?

Does just passing -DPipeWire_FOUND=NO to CMake work?

In D41863#959445, @arrowd wrote:

Can't this be done via CMAKE_DISABLE_FIND_PACKAGE... too?

Can't this be done via CMAKE_DISABLE_FIND_PACKAGE... too?

ping

In D41864#955078, @arrowd wrote:

Looks good, although I didn't run-test it. But it should be fine, right?

Yes, I'm using it with PIPEWIRE OFF. With ON it's same as without this patch.

Looks good, although I didn't run-test it. But it should be fine, right?

In D41864#954323, @arrowd wrote:

In D41864#954311, @vvd wrote:

How to determine this if ecm_find_qmlmodule is called and not find_package directly?

Just a bit of searching: https://github.com/KDE/extra-cmake-modules/blob/ed9b7b7eb95bb66e92f2eff39ad8cf3b36cb1b76/modules/ECMFindQmlModule.cmake#L52

In D41864#954311, @vvd wrote:

How to determine this if ecm_find_qmlmodule is called and not find_package directly?

How to determine this if ecm_find_qmlmodule is called and not find_package directly?

In D41864#954301, @arrowd wrote:

In D41864#954296, @vvd wrote:

In D41864#954190, @tcberner wrote:

ecm_find_qmlmlodule seems to call find_package, so you might be able to use CMAKE_DISABLE_FIND_PACKAGE_xyz

What is "xyz" in this case?
Not PIPEWIRE, not KPIPEWIRE.

xyz stands for what is passed into find_package: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/variable/CMAKE_DISABLE_FIND_PACKAGE_PackageName.html

In D41864#954296, @vvd wrote:

In D41864#954190, @tcberner wrote:

ecm_find_qmlmlodule seems to call find_package, so you might be able to use CMAKE_DISABLE_FIND_PACKAGE_xyz

What is "xyz" in this case?
Not PIPEWIRE, not KPIPEWIRE.

In D41864#954190, @tcberner wrote:

ecm_find_qmlmlodule seems to call find_package, so you might be able to use CMAKE_DISABLE_FIND_PACKAGE_xyz

What is "xyz" in this case?
Not PIPEWIRE, not KPIPEWIRE.

In D41864#954190, @tcberner wrote:

Not a fan of carrying a patch for this.

Not a fan of carrying a patch for this.

Thanks!