From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Feb 19 02:52:53 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 B5B67AADD5A for ; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [IPv6:2607:f678:1010::34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E12B9ED; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:52:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id u1J2SulN022561 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:28:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.14.2/Submit) with UUCP id u1J2SuGQ022560; Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:28:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from fbsd81 by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA07377; Thu, 18 Feb 16 17:55:31 PST Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 17:55:25 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com (Perry Hutchison) To: avg@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unexpected package dependency Message-Id: <56c6760d.nR7fjvuf3gEK3yNY%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <56c43d57.Pot24goK72QkTKqk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <56C45B9C.7090808@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <56C45B9C.7090808@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:52:53 -0000 Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 17/02/2016 11:28, Perry Hutchison wrote: > > I had not expected to find gcc listed (in packagesite.yaml) as a > > dependency of the sysutils/cpuburn package. I can understand a > > _port_ needing gcc (at build time), but does the cpuburn _package_ > > actually require gcc at _runtime_? > > I don't believe so. AFAIR, it builds static binaries. So would the inclusion of gcc in the "deps" for sysutils/cpuburn (in packagesite.yaml) be caused by a problem with the way the dependencies are specified in the port, or with the way they are handled by the package-generation mechanism? (I'm trying to figure out which to file a PR against -- and I'm not all that familiar with pkgng details.)