Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 03:48:19 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 245447] java/jflex: Update 1.4.2 -> 1.8.1; unmark broken Message-ID: <bug-245447-7788-2D2OTsJoAQ@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-245447-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-245447-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D245447 --- Comment #3 from Jashank Jeremy <freebsd@jashankj.space> --- At 2020-04-11 13:57:55 +0000, Edmondas Girkantas wrote: > I'm wondering regarding use of prebuilt binary, is it common practice wit= h Java ports Interesting question! By my rough count, in java/ just under half of the ports (62/126), and in t= he tree as a whole, around three-fifths of ports with category `java' (348/584= ), are NO_BUILD or similar. There are ports that are *obviously* NO_BUILD --- documentation bundles, bootstrap JVMs, linuxulator ports, restrictively-licensed, etc.; there are ports that can be opted between building and not. It's not a very clear-cut answer, but it seems fairly evenly split.=20=20 As building JFlex requires either Maven or Bazel, and the prior art for Mav= en in the ports tree --- e.g., archivers/snappy-java, biology/cytoscape, devel/hadoop2 --- all look extremely painful to manage, I opted to update t= he port to install a precompiled JAR instead. (As a more general note, the number of Maven-using ports makes me wonder if it's worth putting together a USES=3D mechanism for it; and similarly, the = number of ports that individually derive optional building.) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-245447-7788-2D2OTsJoAQ>