Dan Ports wrote:
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.
For Java ports I never have a problem installing the binaries unless a patch is
needed. I don't see why people like to recompile Java packages from source.
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.
log files should go into $prefix/var/log.
- 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.
Well, I would keep those jars there and not let any other packages use their
dependency jars.
Blair
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
