Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 16:53:25 +0200 From: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd.java.mk 2.0 Message-ID: <20031006145325.GA40341@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <20030925152156.GA59287@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> References: <200309240954.45634.ernst.dehaan@nl.wanadoo.com> <20030924105244.GA12146@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> <20030924184305.GA70288@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20030925131909.GA56431@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> <20030925150119.GA2949@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20030925152156.GA59287@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
bsd.java.mk 2.0 has been updated! More details at: http://www.esil.univ-mrs.fr/~hquiroz/freebsd/bsd.java.mk-2.0.html CHANGES: 2003-10-05: - changed JAVA_VENDOR keywords: 'freebsd' -> 'bsdjava', 'freebsd foundation' -> 'freebsd' - JAVA_PORT_VENDOR is now set to the vendor keyword (use _JAVA_VENDOR_keyword for complete vendor name) TODO: - Implement a sorting mechanism for JDK port selection - Handle JDK/JRE - Decide definitively the name/keyword for JDK vendors (and then rename JDK ports in bsd.java.mk) - Handle installed JDK ports using metainformation available - Decide if we get rid of the JAVA_HOME overide stuff (Herve: I'm for removing it as it's not safe IMHO) The 4th item (in the TODO list) is quite important to me right now (maintenance issues and flexibility) so I think I'll work on that during the next nights... so I can implement the JDK/JRE handling part. Can we decide something about the 5th item ? In the original proposal for bsd.java.mk 1.0, the user had the ability to enforce a given JDK port dependency. IMHO it's not so important now (and could possibly lead to some trouble). However I would like to hear from people that have actually used this feature... or anybody else BTW. Maybe I'm missing some point here so please tell me what you think of it (especially you Ernst). Herve On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 05:21:56PM +0200, Herve Quiroz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:01:19AM -0600, Greg Lewis wrote: > > Well, here is another suggestion. The vendor of the native ports built > > from source isn't really FreeBSD, its the BSD Java porting team. So > > a possibility is to use bsdjava as the vendor rather than freebsd. That > > will remove the conflict in a simpler fashion. > > Okay. So we would have: > > - "freebsd" means "FreeBSD Foundation" > - "bsdjava" means "BSD Java porting team" > > I'll do that. > > > Herve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031006145325.GA40341>