Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:16:13 -0500 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dependencies: base vs. ports (Was: Re: ports/187468) Message-ID: <96417c9b8779f4ca490b997e7c7c4878@shatow.net> In-Reply-To: <20140312143605.GA47022@FreeBSD.org> References: <531FAF5D.1010207@FreeBSD.org> <20140312044851.GA28621@FreeBSD.org> <53204C90.4050103@FreeBSD.org> <20140312143605.GA47022@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-03-12 09:36, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 07:01:20AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> > On Mar 11, 2014, at 23:48, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> 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 No, I do appreciate it. We need to communicate more. Bapt and I had discussed this with Des briefly and had pretty much taken on this task privately. These things do need to be discussed in public more. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96417c9b8779f4ca490b997e7c7c4878>