Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 09:38:47 +0200 From: Ernst de Haan <ernst@jollem.com> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> Cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Java port behavior ideas Message-ID: <20010526093847.A1159@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <20010526070328.A18869@misty.eyesbeyond.com>; from glewis@eyesbeyond.com on Sat, May 26, 2001 at 07:03:28AM %2B0930 References: <3B0C3A63.3020908@quack.kfu.com> <200105241911.f4OJBtS32613@mail.uic-in.net> <20010526045110.A18502@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20010525215138.A55928@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> <20010526070328.A18869@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg & all,
> > Current port name New port name
> > ----------------- -------------
> > linux-jdk linux-blackdown-jdk12
> > linux-jdk13 linux-sun-jdk13
> > linux-jdk14 linux-sun-jdk14
>
> This is good. Presumably the IBM JDKs fit in as linux-ibm-jdk##.
Yup. That's the idea. There is already a port that is >90% ready that installs
the IBM JDK 1.3.0. I should look into why it's not ready for prime time (and
if it is, poke the right ppl ;) )
> > And perhaps even:
> >
> > jdk jdk11
> > jdk12-beta jdk12
>
> If this is what happens, why not make the move to sun-jdk11 and sun-jdk12
> respectively. If IBM ever decide to do a FreeBSD port of their JDK then
> we're ready for it :). It also seems to fit in consistently with the
> naming scheme for the Linux versions.
Uh, well, are those Sun JDKs ? I thought they were native JDKs ported by Nate
and Greg (Nate did most of the 1.1 port, didn't he?) Anyway, there is indeed
the issue of multiple JDKs for FreeBSD, but, as discussed on -ports IIRC, we
could indeed use a prefix for special versions.
For instance, suppose 2 ppl were both working on porting JDK 1.3 to FreeBSD.
Suppose these ppl were named Greg and Bill. We could name these ports
greg-jdk13 and bill-jdk13 ;) Nah, just kidding. But I think we'll figure this
out.
But the question remains: What would be a good prefix for the native FreeBSD
JDKs we have right now? Or don't we need one? My suggestion: Leave them as
they are right now, and look into this in the future. I'd already be *very*
happy if we could make the transition to the new naming scheme for the Linux
JDKs.
> 1. What if we want to add the Sun Linux JDK 1.3.1 but still keep the
> Sun Linux JDK 1.3.0_02 port (due to 1.3.1 having some bugs which
> are fixed in 1.3.0_02). How does this fit into the scheme?
Good point. It seems that 1.3.1 exposes quite a few bugs that were solved in
1.3.0_02. Weird. Anyway...
What if we would change the naming scheme just a little to include dots in the
version numbers, and have specific ports for specific versions? Like this:
Normal ports:
jdk1.1.8 (JDK 1.1.8 for FreeBSD)
jdk1.2.2 (JDK 1.2.2 for FreeBSD)
linux-blackdown-jdk1.2.2 (Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 for Linux)
linux-blackdown-jdk1.3.0 (Blackdown JDK 1.3.0 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.3.0 (Sun JDK 1.3.0_02 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.3.1 (Sun JDK 1.3.1 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.4.0beta (Sun JDK 1.4.0beta for Linux)
linux-ibm-jdk1.3.0 (IBM JDK 1.3.0 for Linux)
Ports that in fact refer to another one:
jdk1.1 --> jdk1.1.8
jdk1.2 --> jdk1.2.2
linux-blackdown-jdk1.2 --> linux-blackdown-jdk1.2.2
linux-blackdown-jdk1.3 --> linux-blackdown-jdk1.2.2
linux-sun-jdk1.3 --> linux-sun-jdk1.3.1
linux-sun-jdk1.4 --> linux-sun-jdk1.4.0beta
linux-ibm-jdk1.3 --> linux-ibm-jdk1.3.0
Using this schema we would have a lot more flexibility. We could extend this
even *further*, but I'm not sure if we really want that. In the suggested
scheme we can already install both the Sun 1.3.0_02 and the 1.3.1 JDK. But we
can *not* install both JDK 1.3.0_01 and 1.3.0_02. In some cases, specifically
when testing, you want to test with as many JDK versions as you can, so in
such a case this extra flexibility would come in handy. However, I don't think
Sun, to name a JDK provider, provides access to the older 1.3.0 and 1.3.0_01
releases anymore.
Anyway, if we would want to support this extra level, we would get something
like the following list of JDK ports:
Normal ports:
jdk1.1.8final (JDK 1.1.8 for FreeBSD)
jdk1.2.2beta10 (JDK 1.2.2b10 for FreeBSD)
linux-blackdown-jdk1.2.2final (Blackdown JDK 1.2.2 for Linux)
linux-blackdown-jdk1.3.0final (Blackdown JDK 1.3.0 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.3.0_02 (Sun JDK 1.3.0_02 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.3.0_01 (Sun JDK 1.3.0_01 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.3.0final (Sun JDK 1.3.0 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.3.1final (Sun JDK 1.3.1 for Linux)
linux-sun-jdk1.4.0beta1 (Sun JDK 1.4.0beta for Linux)
linux-ibm-jdk1.3.0final (IBM JDK 1.3.0 for Linux)
Ports that in fact refer to another one:
jdk1.1 --> jdk1.1.8
jdk1.1.8 --> jdk1.1.8final
jdk1.2 --> jdk1.2.2
jdk1.2.2 --> jdk1.2.2b10
linux-blackdown-jdk1.2 --> linux-blackdown-jdk1.2.2
linux-blackdown-jdk1.2.2 --> linux-blackdown-jdk1.2.2final
linux-blackdown-jdk1.3 --> linux-blackdown-jdk1.3.0
linux-blackdown-jdk1.3.0 --> linux-blackdown-jdk1.3.0final
linux-sun-jdk1.3 --> linux-sun-jdk1.3.1
linux-sun-jdk1.3.0 --> linux-sun-jdk1.3.0_02
linux-sun-jdk1.3.1 --> linux-sun-jdk1.3.1final
linux-sun-jdk1.4 --> linux-sun-jdk1.4.0
linux-sun-jdk1.4.0 --> linux-sun-jdk1.4.0beta
linux-ibm-jdk1.3 --> linux-ibm-jdk1.3.0
linux-ibm-jdk1.3.0 --> linux-ibm-jdk1.3.0final
Anyway, while perhaps useful in a few cases this seems a bit bloated to me,
and I suggest using the former approach.
> 2. Do we want a way of differentiating between JDKs which are built
> from source and JDKs we have a binary of?
Uhm, how and why would we want to do that?
> Hmmm, I must admit I hadn't thought through all the details, I was just
> throwing out an idea at that point. Its certainly something (linking into
> jre/lib/ext) which has reduced my pain level with development. Clearly
> there are some rough edges though.
Well, you already tried this? And it worked for you? Hmm, perhaps we should
all just try this out and see what problems we run in to.
/Ernst
--
Ernst de Haan
Java Architect
Jollem Information Technology
"Come to me all who are weary and burdened
and I will give you rest" -- Jesus Christ
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?20010526093847.A1159>