On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:12:54PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > We need some sort of policy how to deal with software written in > Java. We have a number of ports that are basically just wrappers > that install pre-compiled Java byte code. Additional ports in this > style have been proposed. Actual Java source may or may not be > available, but it is certainly not used by the ports in question. > > Some people--Marc Balmer has been very outspoken--dislike this > approach, because we are just wrapping other people's binaries. > Instead, ports should fetch the source and newly compile the code. > The counter argument from the Java people is that Java byte code > is machine-independent, compiling it afresh will just produce the > very same binaries, adding build time for no gain. An additional > complication is that passing around binary archives seems well-accepted > in the Java scene, posing problems of obtaining the actual source > code and exploding dependency requirements. > > How are we going to deal with this? > > Some preliminary discussion at the last hackathon produced the > opinion that even Java ports should be built from source by all > means. However, that discussion didn't include any of our porters > who are interested in Java... The source requirement may render > various ports impossible or impracticably difficult. We'll need to > decide whether we put our foot down here.
How about using the source if it's available and using the binary when it's not? Don't forget, having the source also means being able to patch it as well. -Ray-
