[rt-users] why does the freebsd port have 200+ dependancies?

[Ruslan Zakirov]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Steven Kreuzer wrote:
>>> In particular, it installed 120-something X11 apps and libraries on
>>> a machine which doesn't have X11, will never have X11, and
>>> explicitly has WITHOUT_X11=yes in /etc/make.conf.   So it's being
>>> overridden somewhere.
>>
>> graphics/graphviz requires X11 to build so WITHOUT_X11 is ignored
>> for that port.
>
> This is incredibly non-functional.  The 2 - count them - 2, TWO
> reports which produce graphs do very elementary graphs that don't
> require 1/100th of the functionality of the GD library, nevermind
> whatever GraphViz brings to the table.  This is an incredible bloat
> with no functional purpose.

GrpaphViz is an optional dependency for RT and can be turned during
./configure and in config. I think there is an option in the config,
however even if it's not there then feature will be disabled on
systems where perl's GraphViz bindings are not installed.

Oh, you don't use ./configure but ports. Then you should help
maintainer of the port make things optional.

You don't like that we don't use 100% of GD? Welcome a board! Help us
utilize its powers.

>>> I have now removed 100-something of these ports and RT continues to
>>> operate and function in every way, without any difficulty.  After
>>> every 10 or so ports I remove (usually in the same dependancy
>>> branch) I stop and retest every function RT provides.
>>
>> I assume you haven't been testing the "Reports" function.
>
> Yes, I am.  I have at this point removed every X11-related port I can
> find, and nothing in Reports has broken.

Actually, we plot graphs of links between tickets using GraphViz that
depends on X libs that is sad.


>>> Before I continue to waste my time trying to figure out why so many
>>> things are enabled, could you as a maintainer perhaps address the
>>> question of why so many extra ports are added?
>>
>> Because RT requires them.
>
> See above.  It does not appear that GraphViz requires any of the X11
> functionality.  It's port might think so, but functional practice
> would disagree.  (for at least whatever RT requires of it)

That's most probably not true.

-- 
Best regards, Ruslan.