From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 23 19:28:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FD41065672 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:28:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx23.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC6BC8FC16 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:28:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 12033 invoked by uid 399); 23 Jun 2008 19:28:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 23 Jun 2008 19:28:10 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <485FF948.5080901@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:28:08 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080606) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Shuvaev References: <20080622020728.GC13734@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <485DF018.5020703@FreeBSD.org> <485F4B7E.3040905@FreeBSD.org> <485F4EE1.9040603@FreeBSD.org> <485F5582.5040101@FreeBSD.org> <20080623084308.GA51236@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <485F6585.2040307@FreeBSD.org> <20080623122637.GA51758@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> In-Reply-To: <20080623122637.GA51758@wep4017.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: glewis@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Issues with portmaster X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:28:11 -0000 Alexey Shuvaev wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:57:41AM +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: >> Alexey Shuvaev ha scritto: >>> It seems I don't understand something here. Can someone explain why >>> jdk ports need to set BUILD_DEPENDS on diablo-jdk15 unconditionally? >> (nearly) every JDK port needs an already usable/installed JDK to >> bootstrap the compilation. This is the reason of the BUILD_DEPENDS on >> javac that you cannot remove. But the port providing the javac binary > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> could not be the diablo-jdk. >> > Mmmm... why not??? > In a nutshell, from the user point of view the reason to set BUILD_DEPENDS is > to ensure that some port (java here) is installed prior to build. > However, if the port checks against installed java in a more complicated manner > than BUILD_DEPENDS mechanism can provide, I see no reason to set > BUILD_DEPENDS to something just for its own sake. > And from the build cluster point of view, the port will be built in a clean > environment, so port will not detect any installed java and will set > BUILD_DEPENDS *conditionally* (.if !defiend(BOOTSTRAPJDKDIR)). > > I have a feeling that the way BUILD_DEPENDS is set now is overkill, and > one can put it under .if !defined(BOOTSTRAPJDKDIR) without any functional > change. Of course, the Right Way To Do This would be to set the whole > correct BUILD_DEPENDS line based on detected java. Maybe this is even not > so complicated. Or I miss something? Thanks for the discussion on this. Since I don't use java I'm relying an the users here. Hopefully glewis can weigh in at some point. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection