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

Matthias Andree matthias.andree at
Sat Feb 8 10:33:22 UTC 2014

Am 08.02.2014 11:29, schrieb Matthew Seaman:

> Other than getting over the hump of implementing all this, will this
> result in a massively increased workload for port maintainers?  It
> shouldn't.  Essentially one port will now generate several sub-packages
> instead of one package.  This will be automatic: just dividing up the
> files from staging into different pkg tarballs according to tags given
> in pkg-plist.  Tags which frequently already exist according to
> OPTIONS_SUB.  It also means that in a lot of cases we will be compiling
> all the different optional parts of a port regularly, so problems with
> obscure parts should come to light more quickly.  Also the oft repeated
> complaint that lang/php5 doesn't enable mod_php5 by default: that goes away.

Consider this a proposal: Will we optionally have an alternate way to
mention separate pkg-plist files instead, or just use @package ...
@closepackage markers instead of PLIST-SUB markup?

I think that pkg-plist is already "decorated" beyond recognition for
some ports with possibly three %%PLIST_SUB_TAG%% on one line.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list