From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Jan 18 07:46:48 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C42A87457 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:46:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pf0-x22a.google.com (mail-pf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 543C81C8A for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:46:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id q63so158208666pfb.1 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:46:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Itat3bQ0dnZpfqV85DdEMA2u4WZK2kGrTaJ8kQDtUn8=; b=sSpEXWhJBWFqNzi9NcKrepb9de3ZmucPnHxOQYqAAG2Fa1t7rEsmbro/psGHcVEnlR AOgWG48QyUqWCnpnLdAnSuByY80213rHb81USdjEDgm0d8D+/NHc7CEkBQ0HJlEhOsU8 tEeaAmw8KVzz59q4CmcU+PSDwmLXpjaASTlOiBMu07rs6QFu5Laf48iwZyiuWjjtT9HB Bg18Bl1MPo6qvVKzsXHZ5KbHNTFfDtR+qascz1o1lOliraMHKV2Xt3HlW1OPwnqJ2mbW EJbspspms6koBDIZC/FLJPhEPscdbhJsNKdCt1KWqXp8/S4TY82A2vbTjUlsPo6eJsS9 eh4g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Itat3bQ0dnZpfqV85DdEMA2u4WZK2kGrTaJ8kQDtUn8=; b=hI2mFL8O8NAcgN+yP53Qegvd4nhqDqQlKtEqBn0eCplP2shhRsIqFHFGeNL3kNKMNB g3qwbWjOyRR8uiso31FLrS8zJjlaSi2EdXJ9ZjSue5NIjmvz4x28f41LkPS4mojBr2Ef OqHAPDuglKZzyCwGUJUZIyTZua2vsM9V1uBekE6q8J8VAjtx3SoshdOZIccswt+bkcy/ VlBGVUlDgsMFhj3hnXXyhh4RKh1J3aLd4HOt4ECuGs1IuTyuW8xtbPqyl5s5JaOrTICT eEh+zcCZhkf0eKlPo7AWq36Gts2Hf6ulRPtFN8e0znvueOFxUD9Lqtr/m8Lu9rxAujgM bl0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWc9ZS0gaPieRzVjwStzzIzSnh1/mxsmMy9if4BTzRO75g8TX9E2Z3ndMt/Ke6v+W1vyVvFyRx1/q0vpnNtUecjuQS/g== X-Received: by 10.98.42.88 with SMTP id q85mr34648321pfq.1.1453103207512; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:357c:8dad:bf7:d993? (2001-44b8-31ae-7b01-357c-8dad-0bf7-d993.static.ipv6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:357c:8dad:bf7:d993]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b84sm31642207pfj.25.2016.01.17.23.46.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:46:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: TEST_DEPENDS in all-depends-list et al.? References: <20160117-122b5781c3b2d8de@tcm.yi.org> <569C5427.3060506@FreeBSD.org> <20160118-7a552ff82b94efc3@tcm.yi.org> To: lists@tcm.yi.org Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: <569C9860.9030907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 18:46:40 +1100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/43.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160118-7a552ff82b94efc3@tcm.yi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 07:46:48 -0000 On 18/01/2016 2:36 PM, lists@tcm.yi.org wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 01:55:35PM +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> On 18/01/2016 7:11 AM, lists@tcm.yi.org wrote: >>> ports/head from around 2015-12-18 had about 15(?) dependencies in >>> www/py-requests for example. Now it wants to build over 90! >>> >>> How can I turn this off? Is this a bug? >> >> By definition all-depends means (and should mean) literally all >> dependencies (*_DEPENDS), so in that regard it makes sense. > > I'm not sure what exactly changed between 2015-12-18 and now. > Specifically, www/py-requests' Makefile last changed in October, > but from December to today its all-depends-list grew from > ~10 to 90. I see the list at 53 currently, but agreed it's unexpected. > Mk/Scripts/depends-list.sh also last changed outside the time > frame in question. > > >> Having said that, given the special nature of the test stage (orthogonal >> and independent to build/run dependencies), it sounds reasonable to ask >> whether they should be included in the target (all-depends-list) that >> has otherwise always only meant "what things does this port need to 'work'". >> >> My personal opinion is that all-depends-list is fine, and a less >> encompassing -depends-list that only shows actual >> end-user functional dependencies is needed. > > My problem isn't exactly with all-depends-list, but rather with > showconfig-recursive and package-recursive, whose dependency list grew > as well, since they use the same dependency script. I don't want > to build, package or configure TEST_DEPENDS ports in the course of > normal package building. Agreed. > >> This question is also relevant for the case of OPTION'al dependencies >> (they're not included in all-depends by default unless they're >> inOPTIONS_DEFAULT too), and would *also* apply if ports/pkg's had (or >> ever will have) any notion of 'suggested/recommended' but otherwise >> non-compulsory dependencies like other packaging systems. > > I'm perfectly fine with not dealing with ports that I have > excluded or that are excluded by default. This is what I would > expect. > > For the time being, I have changed this line in Mk/bsd.port.mk > > _UNIFIED_DEPENDS=${PKG_DEPENDS} ${EXTRACT_DEPENDS} ${PATCH_DEPENDS} ${FETCH_DEPENDS} ${BUILD_DEPENDS} ${LIB_DEPENDS} ${RUN_DEPENDS} ${TEST_DEPENDS} > > by removing the ${TEST_DEPENDS} variable. Now I get the same > behaviour as before, but clearly, this is a horrible kludge. > > Mk/bsd.port.mk also had no relevant changes that I can see > between 2015-12-18 and now. > > So I'm still not sure if this is a bug or not. Is the > package-recursive target really meant to pull in all > TEST_DEPENDS ports? I was under the impression that > tests are exclusively run via 'make test' in the ports tree, > making it completely irrelevant to binary packages. Possibly, perhaps there's an unexpected interaction. I cant answer whether package-recursive *should* or not, but I can say 'yes' confidently to TEST_DEPENDS *ought* only be relevant during test, or any target that uses test:. > Thanks and best regards. >