From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 5 05:50:05 2003 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 69A5316A4CE for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr (andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr [139.124.41.109]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E528343F93 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:50:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) Received: from andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr (localhost.esil.univ-mrs.fr [127.0.0.1])hA5DfDPP004847 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:41:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) Received: (from rv@localhost)hA5DfD4t004846 for freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:41:13 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr: rv set sender to herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr using -f Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:41:13 +0100 From: Herve Quiroz To: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <20031105134113.GA4657@andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20031104182139.GB37133@andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr> <20031104204107.GF25638@zot.electricrain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031104204107.GF25638@zot.electricrain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: Building Java ports from sources or not ? 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: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:50:05 -0000 On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:41:07PM -0800, Chris Doherty wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:21:39PM +0100, Herve Quiroz said: > > I was wondering if it is actually relevant to try and build Java ports > > from source. Indeed I used to agree with this policy (mostly because it > > allows the user to be sure that all dependencies are installed as well) > > but it is quite painful to maintain. > ... > > So do we need to agree on some common policy or is it a "per-case" > > issue? > > seems like a per-case thing to me, and up to the port maintainer--I don't > think the port maintainers are obligated to have a port build from source > if binary works just as well, and I know in my case I don't need to wait > an hour (slow machine) to get an Ant package identical to a binary. > > like the old cvsup-bin port was a real time- and space-saver for those of > us who didn't need to wait a day and end up with modula-3 installed. I didn't even think of build time issues. That's another good point. > if there are no functionality or security issues, I'd vote for > maintainer's choice. I guess you'd be kind of hosed if you wanted to > install from source, though...maybe use the source distro to compile your > own binary package or something. I agree with you. So unless someone else bring me some good arguments regarding built-from-sources Java ports, I going to make most of my maintained Java ports in binary form (which is already the case BTW). Thanks for your reply. Herve