From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 20 16:30:16 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4783D106566B; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:30:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Jason Helfman Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:29:57 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20120318180225.GA51618@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> <201203191945.50219.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <20120319235959.GL46825@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> In-Reply-To: <20120319235959.GL46825@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201203201230.06968.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-eclipse@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] New Port: Eclipse Java Compiler, java/eclipse-ecj X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:30:16 -0000 On Monday 19 March 2012 07:59 pm, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 07:45:45PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim thus spake: > >On Monday 19 March 2012 07:08 pm, Jason Helfman wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 07:00:39PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim thus spake: > >> >Hmm... It doesn't seem right. > >> > > >> >% cat /usr/local/bin/ecj.sh > >> >#!/bin/sh > >> > > >> >/usr/local/openjdk6/bin/javac -classpath > >> > /usr/local/share/java/classes/ecj.jar $1 % > >> > /usr/local/bin/ecj.sh -version > >> >javac 1.6.0_30 > >> >% /usr/local/openjdk6/bin/javac -version > >> >javac 1.6.0_30 > >> > > >> >Please note it isn't coming from ecj.jar. > >> > >> That is grabbing the version of javac based on the shell script. > > > >Yes, that's exactly my point. :-) > > > >> I'm not certain if you can get a vesion of the jar with an > >> argument, or if that argument is even valid. > > > >Of course, it is valid: > > > >% fetch > >http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.7.2-201202 > >080800/ecj-3.7.2.jar ecj-3.7.2.jar > > 100% of 1708 kB 1851 kBps > >% /usr/local/openjdk6/bin/java -jar ecj-3.7.2.jar -version > >Eclipse Compiler for Java(TM) 0.B83_R37x, 3.7.2, Copyright IBM > > Corp 2000, 2011. All rights reserved. > > I am unable to validate this with the jar that is built. Are you > able to get it to work? No, current port builds unusable ecj.jar. :-( > >> >Also, `$1' should be `$*'. > >> > >> I can change this. > > > >Thanks. > > > >While you are at it, please add these: > > > >USE_ZIP= yes > > Why? It isn't a zip file, and why is this dependency required? A JAR file is essentially a ZIP file with additional meta-data, just like a FreeBSD package is a tarball with meta-data. % file /usr/local/openjdk6/jre/lib/rt.jar /usr/local/openjdk6/jre/lib/rt.jar: Zip archive data, at least v1.0 to extract If you are really concerned about the additiaonal build dependency, you may use jar but (bsd)tar is the worst choice. > >NO_WRKSUBDIR= yes > > Can't see why this would be an issue to put in. > > >and remove these: > > > >BUILD_WRKSRC= ${WRKDIR} > > Why? Otherwise, I need to put: > WRKSRC= ${WRKDIR} That's because it is easier to read/maintain for maintainer(s), "FOO=yes" is easier to parse with scripts, it is the "official" ports way to handle this case, etc, etc... bsd.port.mk: # NO_WRKSUBDIR - Assume port unpacks directly into ${WRKDIR}. > Seems silly when bpm supports a different BUILD worksource. I am sorry but I don't understand this because I don't use bpm. > >... > >EXTRACT_CMD= ${TAR} > >EXTRACT_BEFORE_ARGS= xf > >EXTRACT_AFTER_ARGS= -C ${WRKDIR} > > Why on these, as well? I'm not using zip, and zip is in different > locations based on different releases of the Operating System. Please see above. Besides, what made you think bsdtar is available and able extract a JAR file on "different releases of the Operating System"? ;-) Jung-uk Kim