Andriy Gapon <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
USES_GCC doesn't support that, but using BUILD_DEPENDS with RUN_DEPENDS does. The downside to that is you have to specify a particular version when you otherwise would not have needed to do so. Adding a knob to bsd.gcc.mk to allow a port to say it doesn't need the RUN_DEPENDS would do the right thing. > But I could be mistaken. I've probably overlooked a lot of things, but I did *test* my suggestion, so I'm probably not completely wrong. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
