Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 26 May 2001 00:28:24 +0300 (EEST)
From:      Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@mail-in.net>
To:        ernst@jollem.com, glewis@eyesbeyond.com
Cc:        nsayer@quack.kfu.com, java@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Java port behavior ideas
Message-ID:  <200105252128.f4PLSGS07484@mail.uic-in.net>
In-Reply-To: <20010525215138.A55928@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 25 May 2001 21:51:38 +0200, Ernst de Haan wrote:
> Hey.
> =

> > > > I'd like to suggest some additional standards and port plumbing to =

> > > > handle this.
> > =

> > A consistent approach would definitely be helpful.
> =

> Agreed. While on the subject I would like to bring in the discussion of t=
he
> JDK and JRE port efforts as well. At this moment, we have a port named
> linux-jdk (package `linux-jdk1.2.2') which installs the Blackdown JDK 1.2=
.2
> for Linux. However, the linux-jdk13 port (package `linux-jdk1.3.x') insta=
lls
> the Sun JDK 1.3.x. There is a Blackdown JDK 1.3.x for Linux too, but wher=
e
> does it fit in this limited naming scheme?
> =

> My suggestion:
> =

>    Current port name       New port name
>    -----------------       -------------
>    linux-jdk               linux-blackdown-jdk12
>    linux-jdk13             linux-sun-jdk13
>    linux-jdk14             linux-sun-jdk14
> =

> And perhaps even:
> =

>    jdk                     jdk11
>    jdk12-beta              jdk12

Looks fine to me, though it would require lot of repocopying,
which is not very speedly performed nowadays (for example
we are still waiting for samba repocopies requested about 7
weeks ago).

> Why keep the name `jdk12-beta' instead of just using the name `jdk12' any=
way?
> That it's not an *official* J2SDK port in the legal sense?

AFAIK it is not an official port yes, which actually prevents
us from distributing pre-compiled package. This question was
discussed to death several times recently. Look into list
archives for more details.

> Ofcourse the package names should also be changed accordingly.
> =

> This will allow us to introduce a few more JDKs in the ports collection, =
like
> the IBM JDK 1.3.0/Linux and the Blackdown JDK 1.3.0/Linux, to name a few.=
 I
> would be happy to make the transition by providing diff files for all rel=
ated
> ports.
> =

> The dependencies, however, would be a more complex story. We should searc=
h
> through the current Makefiles to see what ports depend on what JDK. Perha=
ps we
> can have an intermediate situation, where the old dirs still exist and co=
ntain
> a Makefile that just points to the new location. I know this construct is=
 used
> in other places in the ports tree as well.

I do not see any real problem here. Just wait for next INDEX
update and do cd /usr/ports ; make search key=3DjdkFOO-BAR -
it should print names of all ports that depend on jdkFOO-BAR.

-Maxim

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105252128.f4PLSGS07484>