On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, Doug Barton wrote: > In an ideal world, we would have separate packages for the runtime libs > and the build tools so that packages could be more portable, but I would > imagine that would be a lot of work.
I looked into that last year and found that the FreeBSD ports infrastructure was not exactly helpful. Ideally I would want something like gcc46-runtime and gcc46-java and gcc46 itself, where -runtime is a hard dependency for gcc46 and -java optional. Short of building lang/gcc46 a couple of times via slave ports and packaging different aspects by virtue of different slave ports, or having gcc46 also include the contents of gcc46-runtime, the introduction of a gcc46-DONT-USE-JUST-USED-FOR-SUBPACKAGES dummy port was the only idea I came up with. None of the three approaches really convinced me. On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > Yes that would be a lot of but it is the way we are doing. the upcoming > stagedir will open the door to easy package splitting and then allow > easily to split gcc into something like gcc-libs and gcc package or > something like that. Lovely. Looking forward to that! (Chris also indicated he had an idea, let's see. Whatever works. ;-) Gerald _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"