From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 5 09:41:00 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 2DB9316A4CF for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mgr2.xmission.com (mgr2.xmission.com [198.60.22.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB8243FF2 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:40:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) Received: from [198.60.22.208] (helo=mx2.xmission.com) by mgr2.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1AHReM-00030b-02 for freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:40:58 -0700 Received: from mail by mx2.xmission.com with spam-scanned (Exim 4.22) id 1AHReK-00072g-Sq for freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:40:58 -0700 Received: from glewis.users.xmission.com ([207.135.128.145] helo=misty.eyesbeyond.com) by mx2.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AHReJ-00071i-SD for freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:40:56 -0700 Received: from misty.eyesbeyond.com (localhost.eyesbeyond.com [127.0.0.1]) by misty.eyesbeyond.com (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA5Hh4uE006248 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:43:04 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from glewis@eyesbeyond.com) Received: (from glewis@localhost) by misty.eyesbeyond.com (8.12.9p1/8.12.9/Submit) id hA5Hh2Uq006247 for freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG; Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:43:02 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: misty.eyesbeyond.com: glewis set sender to glewis@eyesbeyond.com using -f Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:43:01 -0700 From: Greg Lewis To: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Message-ID: <20031105174301.GA6153@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <20031104182139.GB37133@andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031104182139.GB37133@andouillette.esil.univ-mrs.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on mx2.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=8.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 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 17:41:00 -0000 On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:21:39PM +0100, Herve Quiroz wrote: > 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. Agreed. I think that it would be good if ports could be built from source, but the reality is that this is quite painful for many of the Java ports for a variety of reasons. > Some Java libraries have specific Ant tasks according to the JDK used to > build. In such a case, there is no problem. But most of the Java > libraries won't build on a JDK other than 1.4 altough they may be used > in a Java 1.3 environment (provided you don't use the 1.4 specific > features obviously). While reviewing the recently committed mysql-connector-java port, it was determined that 1.4 javadoc produces some additional files not produced by 1.3 javadoc. This makes packing lists a bit of a pain. More fuel for the fire. > That's why I would like this subject to be discussed, as I am planning > of porting dom4j, which is quite complex regarding the number of > dependencies (mandatory and optional ones). > > There's also the problem mentioned by someone else (I'm too lazy to > serch my mailbox sorry) regarding API docs related pkg-plist content > that differs from one JDK to another... See above. This can be accounted for, but its an additional pain. > ..and the problem where some libraries need to connect to some website > during build (often while building API docs), which disallow user to > install the port while he's offline (unless he use a package obviously). > > So do we need to agree on some common policy or is it a "per-case" > issue? I think it would be useful to have a general policy so that new porters can know which they should try and do. This doesn't mean all ports have to go one way or the other, but as much consistency as possible is good. Question. Does anyone know what NetBSD, OpenBSD or Gentoo Linux do for Java ports and whether they have a policy on this? -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis@FreeBSD.org