Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:30:53 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Herve Quiroz <hq@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ports/74696: net/xnap: Remove crosslisting in java category Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0412060221420.10462-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <20041206015446.GA17262@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Herve Quiroz wrote: > This gives that if 'java' is the main and only category of a port, then > this port is exclusively related to Java, namely JDKs, tools and > documentations. If 'java' is part of the additional categories, then > this port uses Java. This is my understanding of current practice in the ports tree. > ports. Currently, IMHO, many ports are located in the java subdirectory > of the ports tree (often with 'java' as their main and only category) > when they would better be in a more representative subdirectory. Well, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about mass repocopies, but in theory I'd rather see what you suggest - e.g. a java XML processor listed as 'textproc java', or as a second choice 'java textproc', which would avoid the need for the repocopy. But certainly it should not be just listed as 'java'. > I was once tempted to request a major set of repocopies to reflect this, > but then I realized that only JDKs would stay in the 'java' > subdirectory. But then, shouldn't JDKs reside in 'lang', as it is the > case for any other language compilers and runtimes? Philosophically: possibly yes. But I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to advocate for the ~135 repocopies all this would require :-) (nb: 68 of the 135 ports in java/ are already listed in multiple categories). mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0412060221420.10462-100000>