From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 4 01:23:18 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: java@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F0F16A421 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:23:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) Received: from arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr (arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr [139.124.41.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD18E43D48 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 01:23:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) Received: from arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j941MqZo004427; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:22:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) Received: (from rv@localhost) by arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j941Mphw004426; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:22:51 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr) X-Authentication-Warning: arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr: rv set sender to herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr using -f Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:22:51 +0200 From: Herve Quiroz To: Mikhail Teterin Message-ID: <20051004012251.GA4038@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> Mail-Followup-To: Mikhail Teterin , Greg Lewis , java@freebsd.org References: <200510030230.j932Uwbo005425@blue.virtual-estates.net> <200510031435.33964.Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> <20051003201930.GA55531@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <200510031647.03917.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510031647.03917.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some questions about Java ports 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, 04 Oct 2005 01:23:18 -0000 On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 04:47:03PM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > I meant to show, that picking one selection actually does make sense in my > opinon -- designating a special variable is redundant. A "historical" reason > is a perfectly good one to help select, which of the varibles to use. The > other reason is that the desired Java version will always be there. [...] > I sure appreciate it. But hardwork implementing and documenting a design says > nothing about the design's own merits. I realize, that I was not there, when > you were designing, but I still can't help pointing at a better choice for > this bikeshed's roof. The defined/undefined logic allows for more flexbility IMHO. There are indeed many ports that just define USE_JAVA without any requirement on a particular version. I remember we tried to find a common way to define requirements, hence we came up with JAVA_VERSION, JAVA_OS and JAVA_VENDOR and decided not to make an exception of JAVA_VERSION. While it may not be "the most optimal thing in the world ever", I must admit I don't really understand the scope of the present discussion. Are you advocating for a re-design of the Java support in bsd.java.mk? Herve