Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:30:17 GMT
From:      Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com>
To:        freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/162991: java/openjdk6 fails to build
Message-ID:  <201203121530.q2CFUHs5019836@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/162991; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Volodymyr Kostyrko <c.kworr@gmail.com>
To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ports/162991: java/openjdk6 fails to build
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:26:26 +0200

 Jung-uk Kim wrote:
 > On Thursday 08 March 2012 02:50 am, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
 >>   Ok, I found time to investigate it.
 >>
 >>   Everything is about arch guessing. java/openjdk7 substitutes amd64
 >> for x86_64 while java/openjdk6 doesn't. I just added missing bits
 >> from correspondent java/openjdk7 patch.
 >>
 >>   Redports build:
 >> https://redports.org/buildarchive/20120307160255-45601
 >>
 >>   Patch attached.
 >
 > Sorry but it doesn't make any sense.  I guess you are patching this:
 >
 > ...
 > # Platform settings specific to BSD
 > ifeq ($(PLATFORM), bsd)
 >    OS_VERSION := $(shell uname -r)
 >    # Arch and OS name/version
 >    mach := $(shell uname -m)
 >    archExpr = case "$(mach)" in \
 >                  i[3-9]86) \
 >                      echo i586 \
 >                      ;; \
 >                  *) \
 >                      echo $(mach) \
 >                      ;; \
 >        esac
 >    ARCH        := $(shell $(archExpr) )
 >    ARCH_FAMILY := $(ARCH)
 > ...
 >
 > Unless "UNAME_m" environment variable is set, there is no way that
 > this patch does anything at all.
 >
 > % uname -r
 > 10.0-CURRENT
 > % uname -m
 > amd64
 > % env UNAME_m=x86_64 uname -m
 > x86_64
 >
 > I believe OpenJDK7 added it because some BSDs (e.g., DragonFlyBSD)
 > return x86_64 for "uname -m".
 
 So why it ends up in our port and not in DragonFlyBSD's pkgsrc?
 
 > BTW, does "make DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS=yes" make any difference?
 
 Actually after successful build I can't reproduce this issue anymore. I 
 seem to miss some bits of data so I'll try to retest in clean environment.
 
 -- 
 Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201203121530.q2CFUHs5019836>