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> In-Reply-To: <56C45B9C.7090808@FreeBSD.org> References: <56c43d57.Pot24goK72QkTKqk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <56C45B9C.7090808@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> 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.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56c6760d.nR7fjvuf3gEK3yNY%perryh>