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

[Bryan Drewery]

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 
>> 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

No, I do appreciate it. We need to communicate more. Bapt and I had 
discussed
this with Des briefly and had pretty much taken on this task privately. 
These
things do need to be discussed in public more.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery