> On 10 Jul 2019, at 4:42 pm, Jahrme Risner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> tl;dr Can a Portfile compiler be explicitly set as a `depends_build`
> dependency instead of `depends_lib`?
>
> I have been working with the LilyPond (lilypond.org) development team on
> setting up a workflow to efficiently produce distributable builds of LilyPond
> (`lilypond` and `lilypond-devel` in MacPorts) for 64-bit macOS. All current
> builds are produced using GUB (https://github.com/gperciva/gub) which is a
> custom build/bundling system that supports darwin-ppc and darwin-x86 but
> *not* darwin-x86_64. With the upcoming release of macOS Catalina dropping
> support for 32-bit binaries, we need a way to build 64-bit binaries. While I
> believe that ultimately the "right" solution is to suggest users install
> MacPorts as they can then be notified of updates, there have been posters who
> have made it clear in no uncertain terms that requiring users to install
> MacPorts is not acceptable.
>
> An approach that several other developers and myself feel could be be both
> robust and efficient is to use MacPorts `mpkg` or `mdmg` commands to produce
> the distributable binary packages. The first big issue is that the Portfile
> for `lilypond-devel` currently produces an ~1.8G package which is obviously
> much too large (for context, the current 32-bit package is 25M). Using the
> trace flag for builds as well as adjusting variants, I can now produce a
> metapackage that is only ~304M. Of the 304M in the package, the largest
> component is gcc (and its dependencies) as the metapackage for gcc8 is 234M.
> While there may be shared dependencies that cannot be removed, the size of
> the gcc metapackage makes me very hopeful that is is possible to build a
> sub-100M distributable build of LilyPond (potentially as small as 70M).
>
> To answer why we need gcc and cannot use clang: clang does not support one of
> the c++ features heavily utilized by LilyPond. For more details, you can read
> through the two threads ([1] and [2]) at the end of this email.
>
> The issue I have not managed to find a solution for is that the compiler is
> an *implicit* dependency added through the
> `compiler.blacklist`/`compiler.whitelist` mechanism and is added as a
> `depends_lib` dependency. So thus we arrive at the actual question:
>
> Is it possible to make whichever compiler is used (using the
> whitelist/blacklist feature) be declared a build dependency instead of a
> library dependency?
>
> Thank you all!
>
> Also, if this should have been directed to a different mailing list I
> apologize and would appreciate a nudge in the right direction.
Probably [email protected] would be a better match.
That said, a good number of those on that list are probably also here...
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2016-07/msg00071.html
> [2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/2018-November/001417.html
