Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:36:07 +0100 From: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> To: Christian Ullrich <chris@chrullrich.net> Cc: Dirk Meyer <dinoex@FreeBSD.org>, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: git: 34ab3bea8aa2 - main - graphics/gd: update to 2.3.3 Message-ID: <y221-74uw-wny@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <e6d7cca2-0160-3cf5-5f20-0110daebe2c7@chrullrich.net> (Christian Ullrich's message of "Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:10:48 %2B0000") References: <202202221145.21MBj5me066167__2472.77430478192$1645530316$gmane$org@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <e6d7cca2-0160-3cf5-5f20-0110daebe2c7@chrullrich.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian Ullrich <chris@chrullrich.net> writes: > Was this intended, and if so, is it really necessary to pull in > lang/rust for a port that is, among other things, an everyday dependency > of PHP? ports/ framework doesn't support[1] provides/requires (aka alternatives or variable packages), so defaults mostly follow "batteries included" convention. It's not a policy, so there maybe inconsistencies between ports. For lang/rust in particular use the binary package e.g., poudriere-devel supports skipping build of dependencies that are available from packages. Otherwise, why build from ports/ without customizing options? [1] unlike pkg itself which supports provides/requires since 1.5.0 (2015-04-14)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?y221-74uw-wny>