From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Jan 18 02:55:42 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B1AA855EA for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 02:55:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B6AA13E2 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2016 02:55:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pa0-x232.google.com with SMTP id ho8so165152660pac.2 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:55:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZZScIEYz0EzLWMWV08R8jOQqNqMBL74UolkvrjgFynA=; b=WQOcAU/gVYpN2uOvLqIUr2+w6QLtAkSk/8Q0rJIuB4+yn2NBNuQU4+PDxMBgLQhtqc 6pFfmoNfX0kWD2FDVIhs5rXxyLuJLJHZkSfT/JvMRWWQ9i+CwA60xGMAkQJMxzFJVG14 DqLJbbUO7RnwSTZ7l0BUoQ3Bouly931NLm0SOPxcb+TAx/YUHrS2CmGxmHKhIijY+O6Q by98SaYLdoxbpjyUpJG2n6ihNELRS19yZ+xNX6VUloC3uQCsjBvqpEj3T6b8A+3fBGOd HNoziDCkmaSUvfqi4fFDtUWe7aCP9hp6N9SmeBQodAMzEdWXhy7muuWsQa8dYy2gWo+Q vDwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZZScIEYz0EzLWMWV08R8jOQqNqMBL74UolkvrjgFynA=; b=JPoYSsoA/n0zaUREqpolEyPQ25wPp/6Eu37X7NgaDAksgouSV/Z8TXFN7jZA5FNWIQ N/HaS7wPWYjGLwuvNBnFb2W2Hxt3eL1KEjVfkRFbA8nlc7R+bUivMc4WRhIWhj3MZMDL 4ZbCcx+jtOxvjuuHdWdPHKmH0SUQrmEmPlhxaeO7lp4GFVyn8bqQXQ8ciLGMgYI3J4hU bb6d5WNfdnYn4/oX0/mmy6P3FiEJZNg29+wJGBAzDJ0Yzq/I/bu/a/IQkMgNsx7THHZj 9qS6csYrS1lz6+Dwwu2oGfxKbrvhteBoFzRWcj9up0qAu4bkLeWJOtloPPzvwj/+vRSJ yJgg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmBevXj3LzZkVnQfcCObh6MNZii/Mx83nEwyqP3/gb/qOHItz8siAGOI+OxlGSeka2vWyAPW+Xu71hqqwqpfhN+CSNTUg== X-Received: by 10.66.102.73 with SMTP id fm9mr33459288pab.32.1453085741927; Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:55:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:357c:8dad:bf7:d993? (2001-44b8-31ae-7b01-357c-8dad-0bf7-d993.static.ipv6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:357c:8dad:bf7:d993]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a62sm20782981pfj.40.2016.01.17.18.55.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:55:41 -0800 (PST) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: TEST_DEPENDS in all-depends-list et al.? References: <20160117-122b5781c3b2d8de@tcm.yi.org> To: lists@tcm.yi.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Kubilay Kocak X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <569C5427.3060506@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:55:35 +1100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/43.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160117-122b5781c3b2d8de@tcm.yi.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 02:55:42 -0000 On 18/01/2016 7:11 AM, lists@tcm.yi.org wrote: > Hi, > > I can hardly imagine it being intentional that TEST_DEPENDS > nowadays gets pulled into the all-depends-list, showconfig-recursive > or package-recursive target, is it? > > ports/head from around 2015-12-18 had about 15(?) dependencies in > www/py-requests for example. Now it wants to build over 90! > > How can I turn this off? Is this a bug? > > Regards By definition all-depends means (and should mean) literally all dependencies (*_DEPENDS), so in that regard it makes sense. Having said that, given the special nature of the test stage (orthogonal and independent to build/run dependencies), it sounds reasonable to ask whether they should be included in the target (all-depends-list) that has otherwise always only meant "what things does this port need to 'work'". My personal opinion is that all-depends-list is fine, and a less encompassing -depends-list that only shows actual end-user functional dependencies is needed. This question is also relevant for the case of OPTION'al dependencies (they're not included in all-depends by default unless they're inOPTIONS_DEFAULT too), and would *also* apply if ports/pkg's had (or ever will have) any notion of 'suggested/recommended' but otherwise non-compulsory dependencies like other packaging systems. ./koobs