Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:15:36 +0200 From: Panagiotis Astithas <past@ebs.gr> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> Cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postgresql-jdbc packaging Message-ID: <42106C38.6060006@ebs.gr> In-Reply-To: <C4722AE77A1524609C2B2878@palle.girgensohn.se> References: <C4722AE77A1524609C2B2878@palle.girgensohn.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Palle Girgensohn wrote: > Hi! > > I'm maintaining the postgresql-jdbc port. > > One thing I've considered, but not come to any conclusion about, is > whether the port should register somehow which version of JDBC it has > built, JDBC1, JDBC2 or JDBC3. There's even a JDBC2 + EE variant... Which > version is built depends on which JDK was used to build it. jdk1.1 => > JDBC1, jdk1.2-1.3 => JDBC2, and jdk1.4+ => JDBC3. Hence, very few would > want JDBC1 nowadays, I suppose. The only package built by the package > cluster now is for JDBC1, which kind of sucks a bit :) > > To fix this, the right way is to create a bunch of slave ports, on for > each type as per above. Then, the package building cluster would build > all version. The slave ports would set JAVA_VERSION=1.1 and 1.2 > respectively, and the main port could install the greatest version. > PKGNAMESUFFIX would be set to jdbcN. > > Is this just overkill? If most of you use the port anyway, it probably > is, but if ppl tend to use prebuilt packages, they will end up with a > somewhat crippled JDBC1 jar even if they run jdk-1.5, so then it might > be worth it. > > I slimmer way is to just let the package name reflect which version has > been built, but not bother to create slave ports. > > Any opinions? What do you think, is it worth the effort? > > /Palle > > (See <http://jdbc.postgresql.org/download.html>; for info on different > versions of PostgreSQL's JDBC.) As someone who was bitten by this, I believe package users should have some sort of warning sign. I don't mind what the solution will be, as long as a regular "pkg_add -r foo" can work as expected. Is this possible with the "slimmer" approach? Cheers, Panagiotis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42106C38.6060006>