USE_GCC politic -- why so many ports has it as runtime dependency?
matthias.andree at gmx.de
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