Andriy Gapon <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/02/2016 11:28, Perry Hutchison wrote: > > I had not expected to find gcc listed (in packagesite.yaml) as a > > dependency of the sysutils/cpuburn package. I can understand a > > _port_ needing gcc (at build time), but does the cpuburn _package_ > > actually require gcc at _runtime_? > > I don't believe so. AFAIR, it builds static binaries.
So would the inclusion of gcc in the "deps" for sysutils/cpuburn (in packagesite.yaml) be caused by a problem with the way the dependencies are specified in the port, or with the way they are handled by the package-generation mechanism? (I'm trying to figure out which to file a PR against -- and I'm not all that familiar with pkgng details.) _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
