From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  8 09:52:14 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: 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 D7D05D5A;
 Sat,  8 Feb 2014 09:52:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru
 [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:60a2::2])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CCC1BFD;
 Sat,  8 Feb 2014 09:52:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lion.home.serebryakov.spb.ru (unknown
 [IPv6:2001:470:923f:1:cc06:8a07:85a3:8279])
 (Authenticated sender: lev@serebryakov.spb.ru)
 by onlyone.friendlyhosting.spb.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B5E214AC1C;
 Sat,  8 Feb 2014 13:52:10 +0400 (MSK)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:52:03 +0400
From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: FreeBSD Project
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <374714036.20140208135203@serebryakov.spb.ru>
To: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
Subject: Re: USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency?
In-Reply-To: <52F5FAD3.8090001@marino.st>
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> <52F5FAD3.8090001@marino.st>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, marino@freebsd.org, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lev@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 09:52:14 -0000

Hello, John.
You wrote 8 =D1=84=D0=B5=D0=B2=D1=80=D0=B0=D0=BB=D1=8F 2014 =D0=B3., 13:37:=
23:

JM> No, it's all or nothing.  And you are asking people to do a tremendous
JM> amount of work to address a personal philosophy.  While I can see value
JM> in splitting out the gcc libraries into separate packages (especially
JM> when subpackages come where one can package libraries separately for
JM> free),
 It is best solution, of course. But what do I think: no pkgng could track,
which shared librearties are REALLY used, maybe, we could add some intelelct
to USE_GCC infrastructure to register runtime dependency (Ok, to full gcc
package till we have subpackages) ONLY if one if ut libraries are REALLY
used? As I've showed in previous message, package which surprises me, has
FAKE gcc dependency!

--=20
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>