unexpected package dependency

[Perry Hutchison]

Andriy Gapon <avg at 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.)