maintainer-feedback requested: [Bug 288902] devel/kdesdk, editors/kate: dependency on katebacktracebrowserplugin.so not registered (?!)

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

Bugzilla Automation <bugzilla at FreeBSD.org> has asked freebsd-kde (group)
<kde at FreeBSD.org> for maintainer-feedback:
Bug 288902: devel/kdesdk, editors/kate: dependency on
katebacktracebrowserplugin.so not registered (?!)
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=288902



--- Description ---
i tried building devel/kdesdk yesterday (tree at @923d2f4) with all options ON.
i'm on 13.5-RELEASE-p3/amd64

isn't this a metaport? how then does it even have any shared libraries showing
up in actual-package-depends? (possibly the USES=kde:6 & KDE=kate:run somehow
lead to this):

===>  Building packages for kdesdk-25.08.0
actual-package-depends: dependency on
/usr/local/lib/qt6/plugins/ktexteditor/katebacktracebrowserplugin.so not
registered (normal if it belongs to base)

obviously it does not belong to base. and yet, there is no file even there:

root at Rick:/usr/local/lib # ll
qt6/plugins/ktexteditor/katebacktracebrowserplugin.so*
ls: No match.

it is here (note the /kf6):

root at Rick:/usr/local/lib # ll
qt6/plugins/kf6/ktexteditor/katebacktracebrowserplugin.so*
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  124872 Aug 15 18:00
qt6/plugins/kf6/ktexteditor/katebacktracebrowserplugin.so*

furthermore `pkg which` says its from kate-25.08.0 BUT `pkg info kate` does NOT
list it in shared libs provided. `pkg info kdesdk` shows none/none libs
required/provided, as expected.

what am i failing to understand? to be clear, the outcome _seemed_ fine [to
me]; i'm just inquiring about the peculiar actual-package-depends notice. feel
free to close this as "not a bug" with no action, and i'll feel sufficiently
reassured. my concern is there's something to fix re: the /kf6/ path
discrepancy; my astonishment is from the .so missing from kate's registered
shared libs provided.

i cant say ive ever used katebacktracebrowserplugin (though Kate yes, day
in+out) so i dont know if it should/has/does work as intended, but it sounds
cool!

note i'm not using poudriere, rather building from ports on a system with 7000+
pkgs installed, all locally built similarly and in sync to the same commit (at
least according to each $PKGNAME). (tbh i also have hundreds of modified/added
files in my local repo painstakingly maintained and merged.) i'm not opposed to
rebuilding this or everything with poudriere if suggested or requested nor
would i hesitate to stand up public access to my local repo. however, a
potential reason completely eludes me that any of my mod9s might have any
bearing on this issue; the subject ports and Mk/* are unmodified (save for
blaslapack.mk).