From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 8 07:48:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9FF516A4CE for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 07:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ulysses.noc.ntua.gr (ulysses.noc.ntua.gr [147.102.222.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EC243D1D for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 07:48:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from past@noc.ntua.gr) Received: from ajax.noc.ntua.gr (ajax.noc.ntua.gr [147.102.220.1]) by ulysses.noc.ntua.gr (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i28Fmhbr013960; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:48:43 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from past@noc.ntua.gr) Received: from noc.ntua.gr (hal.noc.ntua.gr [147.102.220.45]) by ajax.noc.ntua.gr (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i28FmgNW070627; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:48:43 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from past@noc.ntua.gr) Message-ID: <404C95DA.6050606@noc.ntua.gr> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:48:42 +0200 From: Panagiotis Astithas Organization: NTUA/NMC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040218 X-Accept-Language: el, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herve Quiroz References: <20040308153418.GA33232@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <20040308153418.GA33232@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.67-1, clamav-milter version 0.67a cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: PKGNAMEPREFIX for Java ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:48:51 -0000 Herve Quiroz wrote: > Now the downside: > > - What if I installed a port using JDK 1.3 then installed a new JDK (1.4 for > instance) and enforced the removal of JDK 1.3 (regardless of packages > requiring it to run)?. A quick 'pkgdb -F' would allow me to replace JDK 1.3 > with JDK 1.4 everywhere this is needed. Hence my forecited port will end up > registered with JDK 1.4 as a dependency but with a prefix that is still > 'java13-'. IMHO, that is not really a problem. If one decides to force the > deinstall of a package on which depend other packages, he goes against the > common rules and thus does it at his own risk. > > There are probably many other negative or positive points with such a naming > convention. I you think about one and want to discuss it, you are welcome. Many users nowadays use portupgrade to update their ports, myself included. Isn't this proposed scheme going to require that portupgrade be taught about how to properly update java ports (change the ports name and stuff)? Just some food for thought. Cheers, -- Panagiotis Astithas Electrical & Computer Engineer, PhD Network Management Center National Technical University of Athens, Greece