From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 20 23:01:58 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 28DF51065670; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:01:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Jason Helfman Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:01:49 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20120318180225.GA51618@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> <201203201230.06968.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <20120320183828.GB13507@dormouse.experts-exchange.com> In-Reply-To: <20120320183828.GB13507@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: <201203201901.50789.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 23:01:58 -0000 On Tuesday 20 March 2012 02:38 pm, Jason Helfman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:29:57PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim thus spake: > >> 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. :-( > > I am able to compile with it with no issue. What issues are you > seeing? > > >> >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. > > Tar is completely valid for uncompressing zip archives. Yes, bsdtar is good enough for most cases. But we also had some issues with it in the past. I believe these problems are all fixed, however. What's wrong with jar, BTW? > >> >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... > > Scripts can still parse and find both WRKDIR and WRKSRC in this > port regardless of the option I use. If BUILD_WRKSRC is not easier, > why is it bpm? > > I am also confused by this. What would I be setting to yes, to > resolve this issue? Defining NO_WRKSUBDIR eliminates needs for BUILD_WRKSRC or WRKSRC. # WRKSRC - A subdirectory of ${WRKDIR} where the distribution actually # unpacks to. # Default: ${WRKDIR}/${DISTNAME} unless NO_WRKSUBDIR is set, # in which case simply ${WRKDIR} ... # BUILD_WRKSRC - Directory to do build in (default: ${WRKSRC}). > >bsd.port.mk: > ># NO_WRKSUBDIR - Assume port unpacks directly into ${WRKDIR}. > > It does do this, and I have made this change, but haven't pushed it > yet, as I would like to work out the style issue first. Thanks. > >> Seems silly when bpm supports a different BUILD worksource. > > > >I am sorry but I don't understand this because I don't use bpm. > > I am referring to bsd.port.mk Oh, I see. > >> >... > >> >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"? ;-) > > There are instances of using zip that don't work on 7.x with jar > files. I have addressed this in a number of ports as a result of > pointyhat failures. Okay, I didn't know that. However, I still believe ${LOCALBASE}/bin/jar is better for extracting JAR files when USE_JAVA is set. ;-) Jung-uk Kim