Dependencies: base vs. ports (Was: Re: ports/187468)

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 07:01:20AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 2014, at 23:48, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 07:50:37PM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> >> This goes against our plans to have all ports depend only on ports. I
> >> admit this has not been communicated well. libexecinfo should probably
> >> be moved to /usr/lib/private on head to prevent ports from using it.
> > 
> > [ Taking this to ports@ as it deems important on its own ]
> > 
> > What's wrong with depending on system libraries?  OSVERSION check does
> > indeed make it a bit hackish; I would use !exists(/usr/include/execinfo.h)
> > instead, but the change itself is fine, I also do so (cf. biology/ugene).
> 
> You conveniently trimmed out a lot of context here. This thread was not
> 'Re: ports/187468' on this list.

"Taking this to ports@" implies that this thread did not originate on ports at .
I could've simply omit reference to PR altogether; what context from the PR
changes the meaning of "plans to have all ports depend only on ports"?  IMHO
leaving a PR number is enough for anyone who's interested to find the origin
of the discussion, but I'm not that worried about PR rather than the problem
with base dependencies.

> Problems with depending on base: [...]

Thanks for an in-depth answer; most (if not all) of this makes sense.  Sorry
if it was discussed earlier and my question caused you quite a deal of extra
typing; all I can say in my defence that I really appreciated it.

./danfe