USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency?

[Dimitry Andric]

On 07 Feb 2014, at 17:29, Lev Serebryakov <lev at freebsd.org> wrote:
> I was very surprised, when virtualbox-ose-additions-4.3.6, installed as
> binary package on 10.0/amd64, pulled gcc "lang/gcc" (567MiB) and
> "devel/binutils" (50MiB), and I don't mention mpc/mprf/gmp.
> 
> I understand, that this package could not build with clang, Ok. But why
> does it need all these developer tools AT RUNTIME?!
> 
> It even doesn't have "libjcc.so" or "libsdc++.so" in "Shared Libs
> required"!
> 
> And it seems, that most of USE_GCC-equipped ports pull all this development
> toolkit for nothing!

Well, some ports can be more or less difficult to get building with
clang.  So depending on whether the maintainer(s) wish to choose the way
of least resistance, they will sometimes decide to set USE_GCC.

Since a lot (maybe even most?) of modern software requires something way
newer than our old gcc in base, and 10.0 and later ship without gcc by
default, it is logical to use lang/gcc in such cases too.


> Maybe, it is time to make USE_GCC work as if ":build" is specified by
> default? And, yes, add additional port with gcc RUNTIME?

As far as I know, this is a feature still in the works for pkgng.  E.g.
using one port work directory for multiple packages, for example -libs,
-devel and so on.  Although some people tend to hate such modularization
with great passion.  Paint for more bikesheds... :-)

-Dimitry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20140208/7fe3efba/attachment.sig>