Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:16:54 -0500 From: Brian Bobowski <bbobowski@cogeco.ca> To: Dick Davies <rasputnik@hellooperator.net> Cc: FreeBSD User Questions List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: JDK Issues Message-ID: <41AB6796.5010207@cogeco.ca> In-Reply-To: <20041129171924.GE11067@lb.tenfour> References: <200411281608.49648.nsuk@users.sourceforge.net> <20041128161523.J98189@goodwill.io.com> <20041129155927.GD11067@lb.tenfour> <20041129100044.I31701@goodwill.io.com> <20041129171924.GE11067@lb.tenfour>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dick Davies wrote: >That's the trouble - the linux jdk14 *does* tell you you need to build linprocfs: > > <snip port message> >but of course this is only helpful if you are building ports one at a time >(otherwise you don't see the messages from the dependencies you are installing). > >That's a general problem IMO with all the BSD pkgsrc/ports tree implementations >BTW, and should be fixed - maybe by buffering all the dependant pkg-messages generated >and echoing them one after the other when the final build finishes? >(trouble is I don't think ports/pkgsrc is aware of whether it just built a dependency, >or whether you've had it installed for two years). > >In this case I think an argument could be made for the native jdk port to check for >linprocfs, as you say. Have you contacted the port maintainer (try java@freebsd.org if >you get no joy elsewhere, they're a good bunch)? > > Besides being EXTREMELY difficult to wade through the normal compiler messages for even a small batch to find the actual messages you need to see, it isn't very user-friendly that it'll happily keep building even if it runs into this sort of problem. It can stop if the problem is within the ports tree, but in this case, the OP wasn't watching the message at the very beginning of the make, and within seconds that message may have scrolled offscreen. If it was in the middle of a batch, you can't see the message whether at beginning OR end. Now, I'm well aware that "user-friendly" isn't what everone wants, and indeed, given the overall impression I've received of the *BSD world among the open source community, is even less likely to be used by the uninitiated than most flavours of Linux(compare the install programs for FreeBSD and Mandrake Linux, for instance), but nevertheless - I'm not exactly a power-user myself, and have wished for a way to turn up the idiot-proof level of FreeBSD, especially where ports are concerned. Having portupgrade spit out messages for any port that failed or, say, completed with a warning(and any port that can't check for all prerequisites because, e.g., some of them don't lie in the ports tree should automatically generate such a warning) after the batch was resolved would be a Good Thing; and if it needs some such prerequisites to even compile correctly, that would be a good point to have an interactive step when not in full-blown, no-interaction batch mode. -BB
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41AB6796.5010207>