Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:22:51 +0200 From: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some questions about Java ports Message-ID: <20051004012251.GA4038@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <200510031647.03917.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <200510030230.j932Uwbo005425@blue.virtual-estates.net> <200510031435.33964.Mikhail.Teterin@murex.com> <20051003201930.GA55531@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <200510031647.03917.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051004012251.GA4038>