From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 14 09:15:57 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E09016A4CE; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:15:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fly.ebs.gr (fly.ebs.gr [62.103.84.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9996C43D31; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:15:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from past@ebs.gr) Received: from ebs.gr (root@hal.ebs.gr [10.1.1.2]) by fly.ebs.gr (8.12.9p1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1E9FrBu066317; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:15:53 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from past@ebs.gr) Received: from [10.1.1.200] (pptp.ebs.gr [10.1.1.200]) by ebs.gr (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1E9FhCC043725; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:15:46 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from past@ebs.gr) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.300 [265.8.7]); Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:15:36 +0200 Message-ID: <42106C38.6060006@ebs.gr> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:15:36 +0200 From: Panagiotis Astithas Organization: EBS Ltd. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Palle Girgensohn References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postgresql-jdbc packaging X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:15:57 -0000 Palle Girgensohn wrote: > Hi! > > I'm maintaining the postgresql-jdbc port. > > One thing I've considered, but not come to any conclusion about, is > whether the port should register somehow which version of JDBC it has > built, JDBC1, JDBC2 or JDBC3. There's even a JDBC2 + EE variant... Which > version is built depends on which JDK was used to build it. jdk1.1 => > JDBC1, jdk1.2-1.3 => JDBC2, and jdk1.4+ => JDBC3. Hence, very few would > want JDBC1 nowadays, I suppose. The only package built by the package > cluster now is for JDBC1, which kind of sucks a bit :) > > To fix this, the right way is to create a bunch of slave ports, on for > each type as per above. Then, the package building cluster would build > all version. The slave ports would set JAVA_VERSION=1.1 and 1.2 > respectively, and the main port could install the greatest version. > PKGNAMESUFFIX would be set to jdbcN. > > Is this just overkill? If most of you use the port anyway, it probably > is, but if ppl tend to use prebuilt packages, they will end up with a > somewhat crippled JDBC1 jar even if they run jdk-1.5, so then it might > be worth it. > > I slimmer way is to just let the package name reflect which version has > been built, but not bother to create slave ports. > > Any opinions? What do you think, is it worth the effort? > > /Palle > > (See for info on different > versions of PostgreSQL's JDBC.) As someone who was bitten by this, I believe package users should have some sort of warning sign. I don't mind what the solution will be, as long as a regular "pkg_add -r foo" can work as expected. Is this possible with the "slimmer" approach? Cheers, Panagiotis