Direct or indirect libdependencies (using the case)

Alexander Leidinger Alexander at
Sat Jun 5 21:39:52 UTC 2010

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:35:06 +0200 Jan Henrik Sylvester <me at>

> I have checked one of the missing dependencies with 
>, but it did not show up, because 
> makes some assumptions upon were binaries
> reside that are not true in this case:

The heuristics are far from perfect. I just took the obvious ones. As
the scripts are intended to write out values for LIB_DEPENDS, and the
fact that indirect dependencies shall not be recorded there, the
scripts where not useful when I wrote them (I noticed this after
writting as much as you can see in the ports collection), and are still
not useful because indirect dependencies are still recorded in libs
and programs. For this reason I did not invest more time in improving
which parts of a pkg-plist to check or not.

Feel free to submit imrpovements to the scripts.

[recording indirect deps or not]
> Considering the few responses my posting got, either not many see the 
> need to reach an agreement or the posing was not clear or not concise 
> enough. (It is not the first time I tried to raise this issue.)

The best solution would be to fix the ports to not link explicitely to
indirect deps (by improving libtool and by improving the .pc files
for pkg-config). Then we could even switch from recording indirect
dependencies in /var/db/pkg/<port>-<version>/+{CONTENTS,REQUIRED_BY} to
only record direct deps.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list