Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 17:40:04 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Perry Hutchison <perryh@pluto.rain.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: unexpected package dependency Message-ID: <56CB2BD4.1040908@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <56c6760d.nR7fjvuf3gEK3yNY%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <56c43d57.Pot24goK72QkTKqk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <56C45B9C.7090808@FreeBSD.org> <56c6760d.nR7fjvuf3gEK3yNY%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19/02/2016 03:55, Perry Hutchison wrote: > 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.) > My recollection is that the ports infrastructure does not allow to specify whether a non-base compiler (like GCC for FreeBSD 11) is required only as a compiler (that is, only during the build time) or if its run-time is required as well. The latter is always assumed. But I could be mistaken. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56CB2BD4.1040908>