Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:43:38 +0100 From: Gabriel Ambuehl <gabriel_ambuehl@buz.ch> To: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re[2]: PKGNAMEPREFIX for Java ports Message-ID: <1731722915.20040312194338@buz.ch> In-Reply-To: <20040312175738.GA6099@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> References: <20040308153418.GA33232@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> <!~!AAAAAGL3pdUGf%2BZBjMDquXq07P8ELDYA@win.tue.nl> <1226113013.20040309141947@buz.ch> <20040312175738.GA6099@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Herve,
Friday, March 12, 2004, 6:57:38 PM, you wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:19:47PM +0100, Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
>> I think it's not so bad to have Java ports in the java directory
>> considering what PITA it is to build Java (even on a fast machine, it
>> takes forever and that's only the tip of the ice berg). This way people might
>> be more aware of the fact that they'll need to go through the linux emu
>> hoops to get it working... I mean the scripting languages are built
>> quickly on any reasonably current hardware.
> I'm not sure I understand your point of view here... are you speaking of JDK
> ports or all Java ports? I didn't state anything regarding JDKs but if you ask
> me, I think if we get rid of Java ports from the 'java' directory, we could
> also move JDK ports towards another directory (probably 'lang' IMHO).
Well obviously the Java ports all have the JDK as dependency ;-) And
installing the JDK is a rather painful task no matter how fast your
machine is.
> it. Having to execute 'portupgrade java-fop' would make sure that users are
> aware of the java dependency. Still the port would be located in a directory
> relative to its category ('textproc' as for any text processing tool), which
> would be considered the "right" place for any non-Java port.
Mhh that's a good point too. Maybe one could have the ports hit the
user some key during interactive builds so they understand what they
are going to do to their system? And for batch builds, it would simply be
ignored so that bento could still work with it.
> As a side note, we already have a native binary distribution for JDK 1.3 and I
> believe that we will soon have the same for JDK 1.4, thanks to Alexey, Greg and
> others... So running Java won't be a PITA anymore.
Well from what I remember, Diablo binary doesn't run on current (maybe
it does now, didn't last time I tried it). But sure, I'll love to see JDK 1.4
binaries (especially as it would shut up those "Java on BSD is evil" morons ;-). And
even with diablo, you still have that stupid X dependency which is
arguably not something that should live on headless servers.
But I get your point about getting rid of ports/java/ (especially bad
as some tools aren't even in there but in the category they belong, I
know I had to search for ant more than just once ;-).
Best regards,
Gabriel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1731722915.20040312194338>