Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:19:25 +0100 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> To: Panagiotis Astithas <past@ebs.gr> Cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postgresql-jdbc packaging Message-ID: <408B661F5EDB9C3D9623E3E5@rambutan.pingpong.net> In-Reply-To: <42106C38.6060006@ebs.gr> References: <C4722AE77A1524609C2B2878@palle.girgensohn.se> <42106C38.6060006@ebs.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On m=E5ndag, februari 14, 2005 11.15.36 +0200 Panagiotis Astithas=20 <past@ebs.gr> wrote: > Palle Girgensohn wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I'm maintaining the postgresql-jdbc port. >> >> One thing I've considered, but not come to any conclusion about, is >> whether the port should register somehow which version of JDBC it has >> built, JDBC1, JDBC2 or JDBC3. There's even a JDBC2 + EE variant... Which >> version is built depends on which JDK was used to build it. jdk1.1 =3D> >> JDBC1, jdk1.2-1.3 =3D> JDBC2, and jdk1.4+ =3D> JDBC3. Hence, very few = would >> want JDBC1 nowadays, I suppose. The only package built by the package >> cluster now is for JDBC1, which kind of sucks a bit :) >> >> To fix this, the right way is to create a bunch of slave ports, on for >> each type as per above. Then, the package building cluster would build >> all version. The slave ports would set JAVA_VERSION=3D1.1 and 1.2 >> respectively, and the main port could install the greatest version. >> PKGNAMESUFFIX would be set to jdbcN. >> >> Is this just overkill? If most of you use the port anyway, it probably >> is, but if ppl tend to use prebuilt packages, they will end up with a >> somewhat crippled JDBC1 jar even if they run jdk-1.5, so then it might >> be worth it. >> >> I slimmer way is to just let the package name reflect which version has >> been built, but not bother to create slave ports. >> >> Any opinions? What do you think, is it worth the effort? >> >> /Palle >> >> (See <http://jdbc.postgresql.org/download.html>; for info on different >> versions of PostgreSQL's JDBC.) > > As someone who was bitten by this, I believe package users should have > some sort of warning sign. I don't mind what the solution will be, as > long as a regular "pkg_add -r foo" can work as expected. Is this possible > with the "slimmer" approach? > > Cheers, > > Panagiotis With the slimmer approach, pkg_add will install postgresql-jdbc1,=20 explicitally. With the fatter approach, there will be three packages to=20 chose from, one each for jdbc{1,2,3}. /Palle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?408B661F5EDB9C3D9623E3E5>