Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:48:51 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Dependencies: base vs. ports (Was: Re: ports/187468) Message-ID: <20140312044851.GA28621@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <531FAF5D.1010207@FreeBSD.org> References: <531FAF5D.1010207@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:50:37PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > This goes against our plans to have all ports depend only on ports. I > admit this has not been communicated well. libexecinfo should probably > be moved to /usr/lib/private on head to prevent ports from using it. [ Taking this to ports@ as it deems important on its own ] What's wrong with depending on system libraries? OSVERSION check does indeed make it a bit hackish; I would use !exists(/usr/include/execinfo.h) instead, but the change itself is fine, I also do so (cf. biology/ugene). Any port depends on our libc. Shall we package it as well? Many ports depend on zlib, bzip2 (all in the base), etc. Does this plan of yours say that soon we would have to add archivers/bzip2 in LIB_DEPENDS for any port that wants to link against libbz2? Was it discussed somewhere, in public? Because it is certainly news for me; moreover, I *like* to depend on base for simple things, just as I like to use system compiler whenever possible. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140312044851.GA28621>