Anders F Björklund wrote:
Blair Zajac wrote:
Additionally, with the upgrade to Spring 2.5.x, one needs JDK 6 to
compile it, so for that port, I had to disable compilation and just
use the supplied jar's, which I'm happy to do.
The only reason I see to compile a Java port is if you are patching
the source code.
Isn't running the supplied jar just like running the supplied binary ?
Seems more like a question of binary blob versus open source to me...
Then again, a working binary might be better than a broken source :-)
(depending on who you ask, other projects like JPackage* recompile all)
--anders
* see http://www.jpackage.org/jpprequest.php
I don't think the comparison with binary packages is entirely fair. Jar files
fall in between source packages and complete binary ones. You can relocate a
jar file without it breaking, but you can't relocate a binary package with
dylibs, say if you want to move /opt/local into /Users/blair/my-macports. You
have to recompile. There's also too many customizations people like to do with
source releases, look at all our variants. You don't find many variants in Java
packages.
And I think saying "open source" is just mixing different concepts in this
discussion.
Right now compiling Java packages is more of a pain than it needs to be. This
is the second package I've had to patch. Spring doesn't compile at all on 10.x
unless you want to install JDK 6 which isn't officially released. Now
commons-logging doesn't compile since it doesn't work with the new junit.
Blair
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
