djview: update to 4.12.3

[szhorvat]

Description

Type(s)

• bugfix
• enhancement
• security fix

Tested on

macOS 26.1 25B78 arm64
Xcode 26.1.1 17B100

Verification

Have you

• followed our Commit Message Guidelines?
• squashed and minimized your commits?
• checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same change?
• referenced existing tickets on Trac with full URL in commit message?
• checked your Portfile with port lint?
• tried existing tests with sudo port test?
• tried a full install with sudo port -vst install?
• tested basic functionality of all binary files?
• checked that the Portfile's most important variants haven't been broken?

[macportsbot]

Notifying maintainers:
@NicosPavlov for port djview.

[szhorvat]

• Removed commented patch
• Tested djview-qt5
• Could not test djview (Qt 4 version) as it does not support macOS 26 — seems fixed in the meantime, see a273488
• Cleaned up indentation
• Addressing the linter nitpicks would not be an improvement in Portfile readability

[szhorvat]

@NicosPavlov Is there any point in maintaining both djview (Qt4-based) and djview-qt5? Even Qt 5 is end of life today, and I don't see any advantages to using Qt 4 at all.

I propose moving djview to Qt 5 and obsoleting djview-qt5.

EDIT: Or is the Qt 4 version there to support very old OS X versions? CC @barracuda156

[barracuda156]

@szhorvat The port already has conditional code to support both Qt5 and Qt4, you could just modify condition/naming as desired, leaving legacy OS at Qt4 (no Qt5 on < 10.6, no Qt5 on ppc/ppc64, on 10.6 x86_64 only very old Qt 5.3, no idea about i386).

[szhorvat]

I pushed another commit which selects the Qt version to use conditionally, based on the OS version.

[szhorvat]

@NicosPavlov @reneeotten Any input on this? Can we go ahead with merging?