From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  8 10:32:05 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2053A79D
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 10:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E65511F6E
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 10:32:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5C343B4E;
 Sat,  8 Feb 2014 04:31:49 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <52F60784.7020706@marino.st>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:31:32 +0100
From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency?
References: <1133138786.20140207202949@serebryakov.spb.ru>
 <A136680D-BD8A-4819-9600-6B640AB16ADE@FreeBSD.org>
 <1228142552.20140208033432@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F56EB9.4010700@marino.st>
 <1955647943.20140208122042@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F5EB97.5040603@marino.st>
 <686179459.20140208132425@serebryakov.spb.ru> <52F60649.4010006@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <52F60649.4010006@gmx.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:32:05 -0000

On 2/8/2014 11:26, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Individual examples aside, I recollect that one of the selling points
> for STAGING, together with pkgNG, was that we would later have the
> chance to split up one build into multiple binary packages.
> 
> Not sure what other changes to the infrastructure are required
> (Mk/bsd.port.mk needs to be taught to build more than one package from
> the STAGEDIR), but it's not impossible that we'll see features as Lev
> desires, later, as "perhaps in 2015".
> 
> And libgcc_s is a dependency you get on practically every port that is
> compiled with a newer GCC.

Are you sure this is still true?  Now that FreeBSD supports
dl_iterate_phdr (and has for a few years now), gcc exceptions are
handled through rtld, not libgcc_s.  I suspect that newer FreeBSD
releases have packages without this linked library.  Is there another
reason to see libgcc_s used these days?

John