[macports/macports-ports] [WIP] rename QupZilla to falkon, update to 3.0.1 (#2020)

[René J.V. Bertin]

>The dependencies I put were naïvely based on checking what other package managers use/getting through the configure phase successfully (rather than knowing what's in ki18n), which is where I saw QtScript but no mention of QtDeclarative.

If you look at the CMake output:
```
 * Qt5Qml
```

That's provided by QtDeclarative.

BTW, this is part of the reason why I implemented `cmake.save_configure_cmd` with the `"log too"` option: this saves the cmake invocation and output in separate files in the port's work directory in addition to the *volatile* output embedded in the logfile.

> @RJVB @yan12125 Please let me know if I should put/add either of you as maintainer for kf5-ki18n. I don't 

It would definitely make sense to put me on it, being the maintainer of the (only) existing KF5 ports tree.
Does yan12125 have commit access, and/or does he intend to step up as a regular co-maintainer? If so he is more than welcome (you too), but with the caveat emptor that I've invested too much time in (and rely too much on) my KF5 ports to give out/up the reins ;)


But isn't all this a bit dependent on whether or not you're indeed going to push for a Falkon upgrade? I'd advise against volunteering to become maintainer of a port that you're not interested in yourself. (In this case you might probably take the fact that the current QupZilla maintainer wasn't aware of the name-change as a telltale sign that there isn't that much interest to this browser - on Mac. Is it really more lightweight than Safari, for instance?)

Let me repeat: if you're looking for a challenge, let's start with getting my `port:KF5-Frameworks` with the 2 KF5 PortGroup files ready for a PR, at least the tier1 ports. With ready I mean tested against the `port:qt5` family of Qt5 components and if possible on more than a single OS version. I understand Yan has already worked on this so there may be not much more left to do than to decide whether to out-comment or strip the other tier frameworks.

This would give a port:kf5-ki18n without need for introducing a temporary port, and with a bit of luck it'll  get KF5 some traction. I have updated the Tier1 and Tier2 ports to 5.47.0 this weekend, so there's not even a need to wait for that anymore.

R.