Dependencies: base vs. ports (Was: Re: ports/187468)
bdrewery at FreeBSD.org
Wed Mar 12 15:16:15 UTC 2014
On 2014-03-12 09:36, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> 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
>> '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"?
> leaving a PR number is enough for anyone who's interested to find the
> of the discussion, but I'm not that worried about PR rather than the
> with base dependencies.
>> Problems with depending on base: [...]
> Thanks for an in-depth answer; most (if not all) of this makes sense.
> if it was discussed earlier and my question caused you quite a deal of
> typing; all I can say in my defence that I really appreciated it.
No, I do appreciate it. We need to communicate more. Bapt and I had
this with Des briefly and had pretty much taken on this task privately.
things do need to be discussed in public more.
More information about the freebsd-ports