From owner-freebsd-java Tue Apr 9 3: 3:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr (puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr [139.124.41.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7F437B405; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 03:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (hquiroz@localhost) by puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g39ABP753344; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:11:33 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from hquiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) X-Authentication-Warning: puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr: hquiroz owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 12:11:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Herve Quiroz To: Ernst de Haan Cc: java@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Default directory locations for Java ports In-Reply-To: <200204081813.UAA08070@smtp.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: <20020409113017.V52936-100000@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Ernst, > > to Logger. So maybe we should enforce the ports to install the jar with > > the version number : ${JAVA_LIBDESTDIR}/${PORTNAME}-{PORTVERSION}.jar > > Maybe a wrapper (a link for a jar file without version number as for > > *standard* C libraries) would also fit nicely (again I am maybe just > > splitting hairs here ;)). > > Well, this does not sound too bad. What if we would introduce INSTALL_JAR > that would call install and use the naming scheme you're proposing? Good. That INSTALL_JAR will allow the later implementation of the wrapper etc. Also, we will be sure every JAR is installed in the correct place. > Exactly. That would be my next proposed step :-) JAVA_INSTALL_SRC, > JAVA_INSTALL_APIDOCS, JAVA_INSTALL_JAR. You're getting a bit annoying Herve! > ;) ;) > > The same way (keeping it close to other ports scheme), I would preferably > > make use of JAVA_LIBDIR (or JAVA_LIBSDIR) instead of JAVA_LIBDESTDIR > > (respectively for JAVA_APIDOCSDIR, JAVA_SRCDIR). Indeed those variables > > could be used by the final user to set his own classpath and then the > > "DEST" would not mean anything to him. Splitting hairs once again ;) > > No, I think splitting hairs is very important at this stage. At a later stage > it's less important. We need to set this thing up in a clean way. So, we supress the "DEST" ? please ;) > > about APIDOCSDIR, what about that : > > > > DOCSDIR=${__JAVA_SHAREDIR}/doc/${PORTNAME} > > JAVA_APIDOCDESTDIR=${DOCSDIR}/api > > I don't know. There's already a directory specified for documentation. I > don't know what the right choice is here. We obviously have 2 choices. I'll > look into it some more. Perhaps hier(7) will clarify things. You're right. In fact, I've done it differently in my ports ;) I don't even know why I have written this... err maybe I shouldn't reply posts before taking my morning coffee. What I would have said while under the influence of caffeine is : DOCSDIR=${PREFIX}/share/doc/${PORTNAME} # as any port Note: possibly have the PORTVERSION in the directory name also (see the multiple library versions issue above). JAVA_APIDOCSDIR=${DOCSDIR}/api # to have all the doc (including api) # related to a given port in the same # place But... In you take a look at the teTeX port, you'll see that everything (styles, docs, etc) is located at the same place which is actually ${PREFIX}/share/texmf. When compared to a java port it is the same as having everything (sources, docs, apidocs, examples) at the same place : JAVA_PORTBASEDIR=${PREFIX}/share/{PORTNAME}[-${PORTVERSION}] But in this case, why would we put the jar in another location instead of ${JAVA_PORTBASEDIR}/lib ? And hier(7) says .../share (${PREFIX}/share in our case) is for "architecture-independent files", just as is almost any Java application/library. Personnaly, I don't like this way of doing but as it has been done for some other non-java ports, we should keep it in mind in our approach. The question is the following : "Should we put everything related to java port under the same base dir as java is architecture-independent or should we dispatch everything in the various dedicated directories (.../src, .../doc, .../classes etc) ?". My personal preference goes for the "everything in its dedicated directory" as you proposed, except for the apidocs that should IMHO be at ${DOCSDIR}/api[doc] (see above). That make me think we are right to split hairs beforehand if we want the java ports to be *clean* and unified. I get tired with having to "find /usr/local/ | grep ***" when I want a doc because I don't know whether to look for it in /usr/local/share/doc/*** or /usr/local/share/***/doc (or even /usr/local/share/VENDOR/***/doc). Anyway that confirms the above need of INSTALL_JAR and others. We are getting close. Regards Herve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message