On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:34:43PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Antoine Jacoutot: > > > > > Shouldn't that still be LIB DEPENDS because it's using it directly? > > > > > > I think so, too. > > > > Well that is a *complete* change of how we do things in ports. > > I don't think there is any consistency in this regard. I would
There's none. But most ports follow that "convention". > guess the common approach is to seed LIB_DEPENDS with _some_ libraries > and tweak it and WANTLIB until lib-depends-check is happy. Yes. And in this case, lib-depends-check is happy without adding gettext to LIB_DEPENDS. > > Most of the time we usually only explicitely list dependencies that are not > > already in the chain. > > The end result is the same. *shrug* Don't sweat it. I'm not. I am just asking because if we go this way, then I will need to change 1000 ports to add stuffs like devel/glib2 in LIB_DEPENDS because glib-2 is in WANTLIB which I think is a bit silly. So if the end result is the same, all I am saying is that for *my* ports, I'd rather keep LIB_DEPENDS as small as possible. As long as I can keep doing it, then fine. -- Antoine
