From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 6 08:30:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212FA16A4CE; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:30:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECDB743D46; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:30:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 96C6E148D7; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:30:53 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:30:53 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Herve Quiroz In-Reply-To: <20041206015446.GA17262@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: java@FreeBSD.org cc: mnriem@gmail.com cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org cc: linimon@FreeBSD.org cc: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira Subject: Re: ports/74696: net/xnap: Remove crosslisting in java category X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:30:54 -0000 On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Herve Quiroz wrote: > This gives that if 'java' is the main and only category of a port, then > this port is exclusively related to Java, namely JDKs, tools and > documentations. If 'java' is part of the additional categories, then > this port uses Java. This is my understanding of current practice in the ports tree. > ports. Currently, IMHO, many ports are located in the java subdirectory > of the ports tree (often with 'java' as their main and only category) > when they would better be in a more representative subdirectory. Well, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about mass repocopies, but in theory I'd rather see what you suggest - e.g. a java XML processor listed as 'textproc java', or as a second choice 'java textproc', which would avoid the need for the repocopy. But certainly it should not be just listed as 'java'. > I was once tempted to request a major set of repocopies to reflect this, > but then I realized that only JDKs would stay in the 'java' > subdirectory. But then, shouldn't JDKs reside in 'lang', as it is the > case for any other language compilers and runtimes? Philosophically: possibly yes. But I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to advocate for the ~135 repocopies all this would require :-) (nb: 68 of the 135 ports in java/ are already listed in multiple categories). mcl