Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:57:38 +0100 From: Herve Quiroz <herve.quiroz@esil.univ-mrs.fr> To: Gabriel Ambuehl <gabriel_ambuehl@buz.ch> Cc: freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PKGNAMEPREFIX for Java ports Message-ID: <20040312175738.GA6099@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> In-Reply-To: <1226113013.20040309141947@buz.ch> References: <20040308153418.GA33232@arabica.esil.univ-mrs.fr> <!~!AAAAAGL3pdUGf%2BZBjMDquXq07P8ELDYA@win.tue.nl> <1226113013.20040309141947@buz.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Gabriel,
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).
Anyway, regarding Java ports, I agree there should be a way to quickly (and
simply) identify that a port needs Java to build and/or run. And that's the
main point of my original message: "How to name and where to put a Java port,
still preserving FreeBSD category/directory rules but with an apparent 'java'
tag?". Basically, the question may be: 'java/portname' or
'category/java-portname'? Do you suggest that the 'java-' prefix in the port
directory name will not be enough? Actually I was thinking that it would
produce some opposite effect when I posted my message. Indeed, if I am to
install 'fop' (which name does not sound like Java, as there is no 'J' in it),
a simple 'portupgrade fop' would be enough. So the use of Java is not obvious.
FOP is actually a recommended tool to handle XSL-FO. So unaware users may give
it a try and then get surprised with all that work and stuff needed to install
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.
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.
Thanks for your feedback.
Herve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040312175738.GA6099>