Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 02:54:46 +0100 From: Herve Quiroz <hq@FreeBSD.org> To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@FreeBSD.org> Cc: linimon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/74696: net/xnap: Remove crosslisting in java category Message-ID: <20041206015446.GA17262@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <20041205172415.89339.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> References: <20041205172415.89339.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Mario, On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 03:23:53PM -0200, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: > Well, this PR is about a better understanding of what means the > java category. [...] > How does the java@ team feels about it? I for one think > that we should keep the current statement, java as primary category > for applications related primarily to the languange and secondary > for anything written in java as we have for perl and python. I also advocate for the current scheme. I like the ability to list a port in multiple categories, with the main category representing the kind of application the port is about. This gives that if 'java' is the main and only category of a port, then this port is exclusively related to Java, namely JDKs, tools and documentations. If 'java' is part of the additional categories, then this port uses Java. As you pointed out, this policy is also used for 'perl' and 'python' categories. So I think this is more a general ports issue than just a Java specific one. I indeed do not see any reason why Java ports should not comply with rules that apply to other parts of the ports tree. Furthermore, I personally advocate against a specific treatment for Java ports. Currently, IMHO, many ports are located in the java subdirectory of the ports tree (often with 'java' as their main and only category) when they would better be in a more representative subdirectory. For example, java/jdom (that I maintain BTW), which is an XML API for Java, should (again IMHO) rather be textproc/jdom, like the many other Java ports for XML processing. I was once tempted to request a major set of repocopies to reflect this, but then I realized that only JDKs would stay in the 'java' subdirectory. But then, shouldn't JDKs reside in 'lang', as it is the case for any other language compilers and runtimes? There are probably many historical reasons for the current 'java' subdirectory in the ports tree. But I would rather like to see 'java' as a virtual category, used to "tag" any port that uses Java. Like you though, I would really like to hear from the FreeBSD Java community on this subject. Herve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041206015446.GA17262>