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

Matthew Seaman matthew at
Sat Feb 8 10:49:58 UTC 2014

On 08/02/2014 10:33, Matthias Andree wrote:
> 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.

The code hasn't been written yet.  Anything is possible.



Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1036 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list