From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 12 14:36:05 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id AE60AC82; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:36:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:36:05 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Bryan Drewery Subject: Re: Dependencies: base vs. ports (Was: Re: ports/187468) Message-ID: <20140312143605.GA47022@FreeBSD.org> References: <531FAF5D.1010207@FreeBSD.org> <20140312044851.GA28621@FreeBSD.org> <53204C90.4050103@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53204C90.4050103@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 14:36:05 -0000 On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 07:01:20AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > On Mar 11, 2014, at 23:48, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > >> 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). > > You conveniently trimmed out a lot of context here. This thread was not > 'Re: ports/187468' on this list. "Taking this to ports@" implies that this thread did not originate on ports@. I could've simply omit reference to PR altogether; what context from the PR changes the meaning of "plans to have all ports depend only on ports"? IMHO leaving a PR number is enough for anyone who's interested to find the origin of the discussion, but I'm not that worried about PR rather than the problem with base dependencies. > Problems with depending on base: [...] Thanks for an in-depth answer; most (if not all) of this makes sense. Sorry if it was discussed earlier and my question caused you quite a deal of extra typing; all I can say in my defence that I really appreciated it. ./danfe