On 19/02/2016 03:55, Perry Hutchison wrote: > 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.) >
My recollection is that the ports infrastructure does not allow to specify whether a non-base compiler (like GCC for FreeBSD 11) is required only as a compiler (that is, only during the build time) or if its run-time is required as well. The latter is always assumed. But I could be mistaken. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
