Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:17:06 +0930 From: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> To: Jonathan Chen <jonathan.chen@itouch.co.nz> Cc: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com>, Ernst de Haan <ernst@jollem.com>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: JDK ports revisited Message-ID: <20010606161706.A81333@misty.eyesbeyond.com> In-Reply-To: <20010606094213.A88871@itouchnz.itouch>; from jonathan.chen@itouch.co.nz on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:42:13AM %2B1200 References: <20010601104331.A1730@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> <20010602020059.A18838@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20010606094213.A88871@itouchnz.itouch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:42:13AM +1200, Jonathan Chen wrote: > On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 02:00:59AM +0930, Greg Lewis wrote: > > To elaborate on a previous question I had. Lets say we are suddenly able > > to distribute a binary version of the J2SDK (1.2.2 for arguments sake). > > Is the jdk12 port then replaced by the binary distribution? Would we then > > create a src-jdk12 (or somesuch) port in case people want to compile it > > from source? > > If this were to eventuate, why not have a jdk12-bin port? This is what > cvsup has in the ports-tree: > > net/cvsup-bin > net/cvsup > > The build of cvsup from source is *very* big, whereas the -bin just > installs the latest compiled binary from ftp-servers. > > We could do the same for jdkxx. This isn't a bad idea. I'd reverse it however since and add -src to the source code build version since the "normal" form for a JDK is binary. -- Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com Eyes Beyond Mobile: 0419 868 494 Information Technology Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com 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?20010606161706.A81333>