Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:34:43 +0930 From: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> To: John Daniels <jmd526@hotmail.com> Cc: ernst@jollem.com, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: JDK ports revisited Message-ID: <20010606163442.C81333@misty.eyesbeyond.com> In-Reply-To: <F253Az2Z1XAKItivRRn00013e6c@hotmail.com>; from jmd526@hotmail.com on Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:48:21PM -0400 References: <F253Az2Z1XAKItivRRn00013e6c@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:48:21PM -0400, John Daniels wrote: > Ernst de Haan wrote: > >Well, this depends. There are pros and cons for both approaches. Most > >people prefer not having a third digit. This group does not include me, > > It seems to me that three digits has the advantage of clarity and > practicality. > > 1. Let's say you are currently using jdk 1.4.1. You update your ports tree > (*), goto /java and find the the following list of jdk's (there are no > versions greater than 1.4.x): > > jdk14 > jdk14-beta > jdk14-sun > linux-sun-jdk14 > linux-ibm-jdk14 > linux-blackdown-jdk14-beta > > Do you have the latest version? Which one is the latest? Has your > preferred jdk(s) been updated to a new version since you last downloaded it? See pkg_version(1). Also try "make search key=jdk" in /usr/ports. > 2. Shouldn't we accomodate the preference or need of some people for earlier > versions (due to changed feature set, bugs, company standard, etc.)? At > least for a short time? This one is harder to answer. I _think_ that we have to just let people do something like checking an earlier version of the port via CVS if they need this. The problem with having earlier versions around is you then have to decide where to draw the line (maintaining 8 ports for JDK 1.1 would not have been reasonable). > This is not to say that 2 digits is not the better format, I just haven't > seen a discussion of issues above. A 3 digit format does not force freebsd > to automatically provide all possible jdk's. Bloat might better be > eliminated by policy, not the naming scheme. I'd be surprise if there was > much call for any but the latest versions of the 1.1.x and 1.2.x jdk's (and > in a year, only the latest 1.3.x jdk's). Precisely. > A hybrid approach could also be considered: two digits for older jdk's, 3 > digits for the most recent one's. In that case 1.1.x and 1.2.x jdk's would > now be: jdk11 and jdk12, while 1.3.x and 1.4.x jdk's would use three digit > version numbers. (But this lacks consistancy) It may also cause a certain level of confusion (due to the lack of consistency and the multiple versions). -- 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?20010606163442.C81333>