sysutils/uefi-edk2-qemu: GCC should be a build dependency, not runtime

[bcran]

Summary

Also, move USES statement earlier, as suggested by portlint.

[bcran]

Fix GCC_DEFAULT.

[bcran]

Fix USES.

[emaste]

Looks fine to me but I defer to ports experts

[araujo]

USE_GCC will set build-time and run-time dependency, if we need only build-time dependency the patch looks good to me.

REF: https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-depend.html

[bcran]

In D21580#470248, @araujo wrote:

USE_GCC will set build-time and run-time dependency, if we need only build-time dependency the patch looks good to me.

Thanks! Since I'm not a ports committer, could you commit the change please?

[araujo]

In D21580#470251, @bcran wrote:

In D21580#470248, @araujo wrote:

USE_GCC will set build-time and run-time dependency, if we need only build-time dependency the patch looks good to me.

Thanks! Since I'm not a ports committer, could you commit the change please?

You have my approve to commit it! Thank you!

[bcran]

In D21580#470252, @araujo wrote:

You have my approve to commit it! Thank you!

Committed. But I just realized, should I also bump PORTREVISION?

[araujo]

In D21580#470256, @bcran wrote:

In D21580#470252, @araujo wrote:

You have my approve to commit it! Thank you!

Committed. But I just realized, should I also bump PORTREVISION?

I don't believe you will really need it, usually we bump PORTREVISION in the following cases:

• Addition of patches to correct security vulnerabilities, bugs, or to add new functionality to the FreeBSD port.
• Changes to the port makefile to enable or disable compile-time options in the package.
• Changes in the packing list or the install-time behaviour of the package (e.g. change to a script which generates initial data for the package, like ssh host keys).
• Version bump of a port's shared library dependency (in this case, someone trying to install the old package after installing a newer version of the dependency will fail since it will look for the old libfoo.x instead of libfoo.(x+1)).
• Silent changes to the port distfile which have significant functional differences, i.e. changes to the distfile requiring a correction to distinfo with no corresponding change to PORTVERSION, where a diff -ru of the old and new versions shows non-trivial changes to the code.

But for this port, a bump in the PORTREVISION will be cheap, here is a text from handbook:

A rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether a change committed to a port is something which someone, somewhere, would benefit from having (either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work for them). If yes, the PORTREVISION should be bumped so that automated tools (e.g. pkg_version) will highlight the fact that a new package is available.

If you want to bump PORTREVISION for safety, feel free to do so, you have my approve too.