From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 11 11:32:50 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 7475316A4C0 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.caraldi.com (caraldi.com [62.212.102.95]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A72143FA3 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:32:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jbq@caraldi.com) Received: from watt.intra.caraldi.com (watt.intra.caraldi.com [192.168.100.101]) by mail.caraldi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A559C2123 for ; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:32:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by watt.intra.caraldi.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 794F276; Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:34:28 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:34:28 +0200 From: Jean-Baptiste Quenot To: java@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20030911183428.GA1559@watt.intra.caraldi.com> Mail-Followup-To: java@FreeBSD.org References: <20030909215210.GA5404@grimoire.chen.org.nz> <20030911141020.GB22265@watt.intra.caraldi.com> <200309111621.31123.ernst.dehaan@nl.wanadoo.com> <20030911172451.H57407@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030911172451.H57407@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: ant script annoyances 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: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:32:50 -0000 * Herve Quiroz: > --all -> CLASSPATH contains all JARs and subdirs from $JAVASHAREDIR. This is the current behaviour. > --add -> Add selected paths and JARs in the current CLASSPATH variable > instead of overriding it. This is easily achieved by setting CLASSPATH="$CLASSPATH:additionalLib.jar" anywhere you want that to happen. I think we should keep things simple. BTW would it be possible to include the classpath computing script in either the jdk port or the javavmwrapper port, to avoid creating a port just for that? Because a port is maybe too much for just that script. The script probably won't have version numbers, tarballs, and so on... -- Jean-Baptiste Quenot http://caraldi.com/jbq/