Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:51:33 -0700 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: aiza21@comclark.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: searching INDEX in .sh Message-ID: <4c4bed05.tYqnJdFAA69cOp9f%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4C4BD1B0.5080606@comclark.com> References: <AANLkTimTwa8weHJ_iYhuBP4vSBPf%2BD%2BTP2YjVsPv7LhQ@mail.gmail.com> <4C4BD1B0.5080606@comclark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Aiza <aiza21@comclark.com> wrote: > ... see a big inconsistence in how ports list build-deps > and run-deps. Some ports list no build-deps just run-deps > and vise-versa and some have same listed list in both. None of these is necessarily wrong. A port consisting solely of a Perl script would have no build-deps -- there's nothing to build -- but it would have a run-dep on perl. A port which uses no shared libs outside the base would have no run-deps, but it might have a build-dep on a compiler if written in a language whose compiler isn't part of the base. > Thinking I will have to take both the build and run deps lists > and sort them together and drop dups to create a good list of > dependents to allow for the lax enforcement of standards in the > Makefile about how to list the ports dependents. If you're only going to build the port (to create a package to be installed elsewhere) you don't need the run-deps. If you're only going to run it (having built it elsewhere) you don't need the build-deps. If you're going to build/install/run on the same system you need both the build-deps and the run-deps, but after the build has finished you can delete any build-deps that aren't also run-deps.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4c4bed05.tYqnJdFAA69cOp9f%perryh>