Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:04:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> To: Greg Lewis <glewis@misty.eyesbeyond.com> Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bsd.java.mk 2.0 Message-ID: <20030521145031.Q14339@puget.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <20030520181421.GB28600@misty.eyesbeyond.com> References: <20030514.125107.74756915.haro@kgt.co.jp> <20030515212719.GA18091@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20030520181421.GB28600@misty.eyesbeyond.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg, On Tue, 20 May 2003, Greg Lewis wrote: > > First there are two variable called NO_BUILD_DEPENDS and NO_RUN_DEPENDS. I > > propose we only use one: USE_JAVA= [run | build | both] > > I'm not sure we need "both" since if you need a JDK to build a port then > presumably that port contains some Java code that needs to run. As an > alternative suggestion I would propose: > > USE_JAVA = [ jre | jdk ] > > Where "jre" indicates that we just need a RUN_DEPENDS which can be satisfied > by a JRE (or JDK). The "jdk" value would indicate a BUILD_DEPENDS on a > JDK with a RUN_DEPENDS on a JRE (or JDK). > > This may need extending to cope with ports that need a JDK at run time > (any examples?). devel/jakarta-ant ? > We're obviously breaking backward compatibility here, but I think thats > pretty much unavoidable to get the features we want. I agree... What is the policy regarding such major changes in ports ? I mean it will make a lot of ports deprecated and broken. So we should provide bsd.java.mk 2.0 together with all Java ports patches IMHO. > USE_JAVA_VERSION = 1.1 - 1.3 > > which is something I'd like the next version to be able to cope with. > > There also doesn't seem to be a way to prefer one version over the other, > which is another thing I'd like to see. For example, a port may build > and work with 1.2, but may provide more functionality if built and run > with 1.3. In that case, how do I specify 1.2+ but with a preference for > using 1.3 if its available? > > > Each of which may be empty or undefined if the choice is not important. > > USE_JAVA_VENDOR may contain a list of vendors. > > Space separated? Are they in order of preference? If so maybe we can > do the same with USE_JAVA_VERSION and USE_JAVA_OS to satisfy my > > preference example above, e.g. > > USE_JAVA_VERSION = 1.3 1.2 I think we've got something here: use space separated preferences (in the right order) for all JDK/JRE properties. So no more "+" (e.g. "1.3+") but instead an explicit list of versions... > I would also suggest that USE_JAVA_{VENDOR,VERSION,OS,PORT} become simply > JAVA_{VENDOR,VERSION,OS,PORT} as that is more in line with the other > language makefiles (e.g. bsd.python.mk). You're right. Looks like we're progressing with bsd.java.mk... Any feedback from other Java porters ? Regards, Herve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030521145031.Q14339>