From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 12 04:48:51 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 9658E1000; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:48:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:48:51 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Bryan Drewery Subject: Dependencies: base vs. ports (Was: Re: ports/187468) Message-ID: <20140312044851.GA28621@FreeBSD.org> References: <531FAF5D.1010207@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <531FAF5D.1010207@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 04:48:51 -0000 On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:50:37PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > This goes against our plans to have all ports depend only on ports. I > admit this has not been communicated well. libexecinfo should probably > be moved to /usr/lib/private on head to prevent ports from using it. [ Taking this to ports@ as it deems important on its own ] What's wrong with depending on system libraries? OSVERSION check does indeed make it a bit hackish; I would use !exists(/usr/include/execinfo.h) instead, but the change itself is fine, I also do so (cf. biology/ugene). Any port depends on our libc. Shall we package it as well? Many ports depend on zlib, bzip2 (all in the base), etc. Does this plan of yours say that soon we would have to add archivers/bzip2 in LIB_DEPENDS for any port that wants to link against libbz2? Was it discussed somewhere, in public? Because it is certainly news for me; moreover, I *like* to depend on base for simple things, just as I like to use system compiler whenever possible. ./danfe