From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  8 10:33:22 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 AC78982F
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 10:33:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F4B91F75
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 10:33:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mandree.no-ip.org ([92.228.168.193]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102)
 with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M4B71-1VLDJp1Y15-00rpvV for
 <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:33:14 +0100
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost6.localdomain6 [IPv6:::1])
 by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1BF23CE92
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  8 Feb 2014 11:33:13 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52F607E9.6060505@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:33:13 +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> <52F5FAD3.8090001@marino.st>
 <52F606F0.5090605@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <52F606F0.5090605@FreeBSD.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:w9Yi+hI6SEUaf/lSQJFuvb+lmqyBoQ6ftSDcgEUHYwxuvRGbGYk
 +0Nj+UT7aeEOXLoRnbjdx8ohZZ2H6Thb/MD5qyr5GxaatOZfS/ruDZQ3BqtkeN+sscQeHdQ
 m7cB0GmpLaWVV68ECY3ldgD/NYmpV0KSBeBCSlZOgnDYbBN6NTfDmOu++kosGl+DH/qiV0V
 eMKKwPCNyLaWWI2GCrHwA==
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 10:33:22 -0000

Am 08.02.2014 11:29, schrieb Matthew Seaman:

> Other than getting over the hump of implementing all this, will this
> result in a massively increased workload for port maintainers?  It
> shouldn't.  Essentially one port will now generate several sub-packages
> instead of one package.  This will be automatic: just dividing up the
> files from staging into different pkg tarballs according to tags given
> in pkg-plist.  Tags which frequently already exist according to
> OPTIONS_SUB.  It also means that in a lot of cases we will be compiling
> all the different optional parts of a port regularly, so problems with
> obscure parts should come to light more quickly.  Also the oft repeated
> complaint that lang/php5 doesn't enable mod_php5 by default: that goes away.

Consider this a proposal: Will we optionally have an alternate way to
mention separate pkg-plist files instead, or just use @package ...
@closepackage markers instead of PLIST-SUB markup?

I think that pkg-plist is already "decorated" beyond recognition for
some ports with possibly three %%PLIST_SUB_TAG%% on one line.