Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:48:42 +0200 From: Panagiotis Astithas <past@noc.ntua.gr> To: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: PKGNAMEPREFIX for Java ports Message-ID: <404C95DA.6050606@noc.ntua.gr> In-Reply-To: <20040308153418.GA33232@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> References: <20040308153418.GA33232@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Herve Quiroz wrote: > Now the downside: > > - What if I installed a port using JDK 1.3 then installed a new JDK (1.4 for > instance) and enforced the removal of JDK 1.3 (regardless of packages > requiring it to run)?. A quick 'pkgdb -F' would allow me to replace JDK 1.3 > with JDK 1.4 everywhere this is needed. Hence my forecited port will end up > registered with JDK 1.4 as a dependency but with a prefix that is still > 'java13-'. IMHO, that is not really a problem. If one decides to force the > deinstall of a package on which depend other packages, he goes against the > common rules and thus does it at his own risk. > > There are probably many other negative or positive points with such a naming > convention. I you think about one and want to discuss it, you are welcome. Many users nowadays use portupgrade to update their ports, myself included. Isn't this proposed scheme going to require that portupgrade be taught about how to properly update java ports (change the ports name and stuff)? Just some food for thought. Cheers, -- Panagiotis Astithas Electrical & Computer Engineer, PhD Network Management Center National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?404C95DA.6050606>