From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 16 14:04:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A799637B408; Fri, 16 May 2003 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gate.volant.org (gate.volant.org [207.111.218.246]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F54043F93; Fri, 16 May 2003 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from patl+freebsd@volant.org) Received: from 64-144-229-193.client.dsl.net ([64.144.229.193] helo=[192.168.0.13]) by gate.volant.org with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19GmNX-000PvM-00; Fri, 16 May 2003 14:04:35 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:04:31 -0700 From: Pat Lashley To: Greg Lewis , David Yeske 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> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86 Demo) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline cc: java@freebsd.org cc: glewis@freebsd.org cc: Munehiro Matsuda Subject: Re: java/jdk13 does not autodetect itself X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:04:57 -0000 --On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:46:22 -0600 Greg Lewis 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