From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  8 10:26:26 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED70D600
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 10:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 814941DE2
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 10:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mandree.no-ip.org ([92.228.168.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003)
 with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MD9J6-1W02R43BD2-00GWWd for
 <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:26:18 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1])
 by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4A323CE92
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 11:26:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52F60649.4010006@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:26:17 +0100
From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <686179459.20140208132425@serebryakov.spb.ru>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:J2Z73tddGRDOSSMJ6GKQ5IPtfina4t8zUsJlWNY1ZjHMXWqsWxe
 X/tKb5vazfxe6V4midUO5sHnt2UZlxmk9TNSOS/IQHAS0DrtRXUH6FvKwZ9W4bT0z7tYV06
 pEJzjbAM8YJoESVME/odHg9AJ67BFGtbpZb4dZBvQGavqz6Cbzn7mpfjPBi4i5lBYLw7nEJ
 dkY73kBaBw7N3uKLEYpdA==
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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 10:26:27 -0000

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.

And knowing that we come from source builds, getting binary packages
optimized to the point where most people are happy is still some way to go.