Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:04:31 -0700 From: Pat Lashley <patl+freebsd@volant.org> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@misty.eyesbeyond.com>, David Yeske <dyeske@yahoo.com> Cc: Munehiro Matsuda <haro@kgt.co.jp> Subject: Re: java/jdk13 does not autodetect itself Message-ID: <4234040000.1053119071@mccaffrey.phoenix.volant.org> In-Reply-To: <20030514174622.GA56109@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <20030514.125107.74756915.haro@kgt.co.jp> <20030514041736.88785.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com> <20030514174622.GA56109@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:46:22 -0600 Greg Lewis <glewis@misty.eyesbeyond.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 09:17:36PM -0700, David Yeske wrote: >> What do other people think about this? > > I think its worth considering. Its not too difficult to do. > >> Do we want to expand detection in ports in general? >> Is it bad to set NATIVE_BOOTSTRAP automatically? > > Its bad to set it automatically unless there is also a flag to turn it > off, e.g. we would need to add a LINUX_BOOTSTRAP or a > WITHOUT_NATIVE_BOOTSTRAP. Or change the NATIVE_BOOTSTRAP test to actually check the value and not just the presence. That way there's no confusion about what to do if NATIVE_BOOTSTRAP and WITHOUT_NATIVE_BOOTSTRAP are both set... (It also opens up the possibility of a third 'if available' setting. The exact value to be used is left as an exercise for the reader...) (Personally, after 30+ years as a software engineer, I detest one-way switches. If you can explicitly set it, you should be able to explicitly turn it off as well.) -Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4234040000.1053119071>