Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:36:08 +0200 From: Panagiotis Astithas <past@ebs.gr> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> Cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postgresql-jdbc packaging Message-ID: <42107108.5000901@ebs.gr> In-Reply-To: <408B661F5EDB9C3D9623E3E5@rambutan.pingpong.net> References: <C4722AE77A1524609C2B2878@palle.girgensohn.se> <42106C38.6060006@ebs.gr> <408B661F5EDB9C3D9623E3E5@rambutan.pingpong.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Palle Girgensohn wrote: > > > --On måndag, februari 14, 2005 11.15.36 +0200 Panagiotis Astithas > <past@ebs.gr> wrote: > >> 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 > > > With the slimmer approach, pkg_add will install postgresql-jdbc1, > explicitally. With the fatter approach, there will be three packages to > chose from, one each for jdbc{1,2,3}. > > /Palle > So, in the former case, one would not be able to install a package other than -jdbc1, even if native binary jdk versions exist for 1.3, etc.? If I understand it correctly we are currently not building postgresql-jdbc2, even though we have a binary jdk 1.3, right? This sounds rather limiting. Can't the package cluster build at least postgresql-jdbc2, too? And when we get binary distributions for jdk 1.4/1.5, build packages for postgresql-jdbc3? If this requires the "fat" approach, then I'm all for it. Cheers, Panagiotis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42107108.5000901>