Re: unexpected package dependency

[Lowell Gilbert]

Andriy Gapon  writes:

> On 19/02/2016 03:55, Perry Hutchison wrote:
>> Andriy Gapon  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.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: unexpected package dependency

[Andriy Gapon]

On 19/02/2016 03:55, Perry Hutchison wrote:
> Andriy Gapon  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
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: unexpected package dependency

[Perry Hutchison]

Andriy Gapon  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.)
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: unexpected package dependency

[Andriy Gapon]

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.

-- 
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"