Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:28:15 +1200 From: Jonathan Chen <jonc@chen.org.nz> To: "Scott I. Remick" <scott@sremick.net> Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new FreeBSD java binaries Message-ID: <20060413232815.GA1683@osiris.chen.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <1dobolb0s0tar$.olb3f9dqu3l4.dlg@40tude.net> References: <20060405173445.E15399@yvyyl.pfbsg.arg> <1k0243416wlr9.1gyrg9gwnjj7.dlg@40tude.net> <20060413204340.GA940@osiris.chen.org.nz> <1dobolb0s0tar$.olb3f9dqu3l4.dlg@40tude.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 05:57:51PM -0400, Scott I. Remick wrote: > Thanks for taking a stab at my confusion, Jonathan. I'm almost clear. One > thing still confuses me, though: if the diablo-jdk15 port was specifically > created on 4/6 in order to provide a means to obtain the new BINARIES via > the ports system, and caffe and latte are source tarballs while the ones > labeled jdk and jre are the actual binaries, why does the diablo-jdk15 port > use diablo-caffe (SOURCE) instead of diablo-jdk (BINARY)? In general, the ports system builds from sources if possible; the final decision is up to the port-maintainer. As the sources for the diablo-jdk15 build is available for public perusal, I'm guessing that the port-maintainer has chosen to build from the source to keep the process as open as possible. Cheers. -- Jonathan Chen <jonc@chen.org.nz> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060413232815.GA1683>