unexpected package dependency

[Lowell Gilbert]

Andriy Gapon <avg at FreeBSD.org> writes:

> On 19/02/2016 03:55, Perry Hutchison wrote:
>> 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.)
>> 
>
> 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.

USES_GCC doesn't support that, but using BUILD_DEPENDS with RUN_DEPENDS
does. The downside to that is you have to specify a particular version
when you otherwise would not have needed to do so. Adding a knob to
bsd.gcc.mk to allow a port to say it doesn't need the RUN_DEPENDS would
do the right thing.

> But I could be mistaken.

I've probably overlooked a lot of things, but I did *test* my
suggestion, so I'm probably not completely wrong.