Kurt Miller wrote:
I'm not sure if these things will make it for 4.0 yet.
Let me know if I can help.
-Fred
Some preliminary discussion at the last hackathon produced the
opinion that even Java ports should be built from source by all
means.
That is the root of this debate - built from source by all
means. We don't have this now in the ports tree so please
don't selectively apply this rule to java
PORTS WITH NATIVE DEPENDENCIES
==
Ports that require native platform support are a different matter.
Right now we have explicit ports dependencies on the Sun JDK tool chain
in the ports that are built from source.
With respect to building packages from source
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
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...
[My apologies of this appears twice; I
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.
Please have the java source in the ports tree, and
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Bernd Schoeller wrote:
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.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 06:45:52PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Bernd Schoeller wrote:
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
Marc Balmer wrote:
I was - as naddy pointed out - very outspoken on this issue during c2k6.
And I still am.
I am against ports that download pieces of code that do not have their
source form in /usr/ports/distfiles.
I want at least to be able to see what the program does by inspecting
the
What's next? Binary only software with NOT_FOR_ARCHES set so it runs
only the arch the binary is for?
Well, yes. redhat-base and freebsd-libs set for only i386.
It's pervert to have a STOP BLOB release theme and then importing
exactly BLOBS in the ports tree. There is absolutely no need
Isn't the jvm code supposed to be platform-independent ?
No, that's a misunderstanding. The JVM is the platform-dependant
runtime. It is Java class files (aka byte code) that are platform
independent. Just like: A sh or perl script may be portable; the OpenBSD
that it runs on is
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 01:35:32PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
Somebody explain to me how slower platforms are a hastle for java-based
ports.
The same reasons cross-compiling isn't supported:
* supporting cross-builds is extra work
* you still need to build on the slower platform periodically to
I was - as naddy pointed out - very outspoken on this issue during c2k6.
And I still am.
I am against ports that download pieces of code that do not have their
source form in /usr/ports/distfiles.
I want at least to be able to see what the program does by inspecting
the sources. And I
Dnia 20-07-2006 o godz. 22:07 Theo de Raadt napisał(a):
It's pervert to have a STOP BLOB release theme and then importing
exactly BLOBS in the ports tree. There is absolutely no need to do so,
nothing suffers from going throught the source, besides, maybe these
ports are a little bit
Nikolay Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I completely disagree. The question boils down to what our
ports tree is supposed to be. You want it to be a packaging
system for open source software. I want it to be a packaging
system for any software, even closed source commercial
software.
To
Hello, Mr. suck my balls. Pleased to meet you.
Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Deanna Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the greatest things for me, as a user, has been that I
can completely trust the decisions made about what does and
does not go into this OS. Even ports.
What you
* Deanna Phillips [2006-07-21]:
I completely disagree. The question boils down to what our
ports tree is supposed to be. You want it to be a packaging
system for open source software. I want it to be a packaging
system for any software, even closed source commercial
software.
To what
Nikolay Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Deanna Phillips [2006-07-21]:
One of the greatest things for me, as a user, has been that I
can completely trust the decisions made about what does and
does not go into this OS. Even ports. Take that away and
what do you have?
Those decisions
Deanna Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You seem to want to dismiss this (and me) because it's
inconvenient. If you choose to dismiss the users who care about
open source, what users will you be left with?
Users who care about open source aren't hurt by ports of commercial
software. They
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
On Jul 20, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
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
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.
How about using the source if it's available and using the binary
when it's not?
Right. And in 5 years, how much source will you have?
Don't forget, having the source also means being able to patch it
as well.
Duh.
The point of Christian's mail was is that we all understand how these
Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
only needs the runtime environment.
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
Best
Martin
* Christian Weisgerber [2006-07-20]:
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
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
2006/7/20, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
Better: Install the source where possible (and warn if there is no
source) but don't install from source as a
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Martin Schr?der wrote:
Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
only needs the runtime environment.
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
RUN_DEPENDS = jre
BUILD_DEPENDS =
: source vs. binary?
|
| 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
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
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
Yes, it was. It's about open source.
P.S. Good time to re-read Ken's paper Reflections on Trusting
Trust (online at http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/), before you decide
where to put your foot down.
Wow, that is totally off-topic.
The discussion is about how we can use some of our clout to encourage
source availability in the
On Thursday 20 July 2006 12:12 pm, you 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
It's pervert to have a STOP BLOB release theme and then importing
exactly BLOBS in the ports tree. There is absolutely no need to do so,
nothing suffers from going throught the source, besides, maybe these
ports are a little bit harder to do.
Please do not misuse the term BLOB like this.
It seems like there are a number of questions to answer in this discussion.
I can find (or think of myself) at least the following ones:
1. Shall each port be able to fetch the source for all its bytecode?
(given that this is both legal and technically possible to implement)
2. Shall each
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
Installing from source also needs a jdk, while installing binaries
only needs the runtime environment.
This only means that those who build from ports also need a complete
jdk. Ordinary users can (and should) just install packages
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:22:13 +0200, Martin Schröder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
2006/7/20, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Leave installing the source as an option to the user, and install
binaries as a default.
And in 5 years noone will make source available.
Better: Install the source
36 matches
Mail list logo
