Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:57:14 -0400
From:      Dylan Carlson <absinthe@pobox.com>
To:        Dave Glowacki <dglo@hyde.ssec.wisc.edu>, Ernst de Haan <znerd@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        Calvin Varney <calvin@varney.org>, freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Port/package guidelines (WAS: Please review: new Java Project  docs)
Message-ID:  <200208271257.14970.absinthe@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <200208271553.g7RFrtn26287@hyde.ssec.wisc.edu>
References:  <200208271553.g7RFrtn26287@hyde.ssec.wisc.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 11:53am, Dave Glowacki wrote:
>
> I've just submitted PR ports/42086 to add the BUILD_DEPENDS line
> to jakarta-oro, but since the last fix I submitted for this port
> (ports/39112, a trivial 1 character change to fix a directory name)
> has been sitting in the queue for 2.5 months, I'm not optimistic
> about this one getting committed before the end of the year.
>

I hear ya.  Seems like the ports tree is getting very backed up these days.

> > Initial suggestion:
> >
> > o An Ant-based port sets USE_ANT=YES which is interpreted by
> >   bsd.java.mk.
>
> I'm assuming that this would automatically set up the
> BUILD_DEPENDS and ANT variables?

Dependencies would resolve in the build.xml (whether it's generated or static, 
we should probably have the option for doing both).   The Makefile would 
resolve Ant if it's not already installed.


>
> So far I've only used build.xml files which were provided with ports.
> Would a generated build.xml file override the supplied build.xml file
> (which would seem to throw away a lot of work already done by the
> original author) or would it only be generated if no build.xml file
> existed?  I suppose a third option would be to have the generated
> build.xml file call the original build.xml file, but in that case
> it would make more sense to have the port's Makefile call it and
> cut out the middleman.
>

I would assume that a build.xml would only be generated if one wasn't there. 

By "original build.xml"  I assume you mean one that is part of the port's 
downloaded, unpacked archive.   I don't think we'd ever use those, unless it 
was strictly for compiling... otherwise it'll be missing everything else (the 
usual targets and correct destinations).

>
> It'd be nice if the ports-friendly build.xml could keep track of
> what was installed, so it could generate all or part of the packing
> list.

This is a necessity for the 'deinstall' target.

-- 
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@pobox.com]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-java" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200208271257.14970.absinthe>