On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 01:14:40AM +0100, Jann R??der wrote: > Hi, > somebody created a port for ActiveMQ: > http://trac.macports.org/ticket/23143 . The port however has the problem > that non-root users cannot run it since it wants to write to > /opt/local/share/java/activemq . I told the submitter that he has to > install a config file so that the port works out of the box for non-root > users and doesn't write to /opt/local/share/java/activemq. What is the > official policy for such things? Do ports have to work out of the box?
I submitted that portfile, so feel compelled to respond -- but note that I have no real familiarity with ActiveMQ other than offering to help write a portfile. Being a Java-based port, it brought up a few other issues that I didn't have a good answer to. I tried to resolve them based on a (highly scientific) study of some other random Java ports. But it's probably worth clarifying policy on these: - ActiveMQ has both a source and binary distribution. Which should we use? I went with the binary not just out of simple laziness but also because it depended on some Java packages that we didn't already have ports for. (I guess that'd be a more sophisticated form of laziness.) I found a bunch of ports of each type: source or binary installs. If going with a binary install, then: - the binary install is designed to be run out of its directory, so the port puts a bunch of stuff in /opt/local/share/java/activemq. I agree with Jann that some of it really doesn't belong there, including apparently logfiles. But I'm not entirely clear on what should be moved and where. - the binary distribution includes all of its library dependencies, leading to a bunch of jar files in /opt/local/share/java/activemq/lib. Some are also provided by ports, like commons-*. Should we do something about that? I was pretty troubled by the duplication, but they *are* included in the binary dist, and the activemq folks told me they were worried about version mismatches with already-installed libraries. Note that some other ports (I think maven is one?) also wind up installing some of the same libraries so there is a danger we'll wind up with a bunch of copies. - I originally put in a dependency on bin:java:kaffe, but Jann pointed out that this is silly since Java has been included in OS X at least as far back as I can remember. A lot of other ports have this same dependency. What's up with that? Should they be changed? Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/ _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
