Bug 97856

Summary: [PATCH] java/jode: Update to bsd.java.mk 2.0 and other improvements
Product: Ports & Packages Reporter: Herve Quiroz <hq>
Component: Individual Port(s)Assignee: Mikhail Teterin <mi>
Status: Closed FIXED    
Severity: Affects Only Me CC: freebsd-2024
Priority: Normal    
Version: Latest   
Hardware: Any   
OS: Any   
Attachments:
Description Flags
jode-1.1.2.p1.patch none

Description Herve Quiroz freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-05-24 23:30:14 UTC 
- Update to bsd.java.mk 2.0
- Use DISTVERSION to avoid using a different port version number than the
  distfile
- Set JAVA_VERSION (for javavmwrapper) in the launcher script
- Use an absolute path to launch javavmwrapper
- JAVAJARDIR -> JAVALIBDIR (for JAR dependencies)
- Use %%JAVAJARDIR%% in pkg-plist

Port maintainer (mi@aldan.algebra.com) is cc'd.

Generated with FreeBSD Port Tools 0.77
Comment 1 Edwin Groothuis freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-05-24 23:32:23 UTC 
Responsible Changed
From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->hq

Submitter is a commiter
Comment 2 Edwin Groothuis freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-05-24 23:32:31 UTC 
State Changed
From-To: open->feedback

Awaiting maintainers feedback
Comment 3 Mikhail Teterin 2006-05-26 06:30:23 UTC 
Thanks for the work, Herve, but should not we wait for a new release from the 
vendor with this?

Clearly, a *new* port should follow the practice and standards of the new 
bsd.java.mk, but are the changes really important to "disturb" an existing 
port without upgrading?

Yours,

	-mi
Comment 4 Mark Linimon freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-05-30 20:56:29 UTC 
Responsible Changed
From-To: hq->mi

This is really mi's port.
Comment 5 Hervé Quiroz 2006-05-31 13:09:01 UTC 
[ Sorry, this mail got lost days ago due to some trouble with my SMTP
server so I am resending it ]

Hi Mikhail,

On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 01:30:23AM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Thanks for the work, Herve, but should not we wait for a new release from the 
> vendor with this?
> 
> Clearly, a *new* port should follow the practice and standards of the new 
> bsd.java.mk, but are the changes really important to "disturb" an existing 
> port without upgrading?

You're right, we could wait for a new realease but there has been none
since february 2004 and I am in the process of updating all ports to
bsd.java.mk 2.0 syntax so that we can remove the compatibility layer in
bsd.java.mk and move on to implementing new features [1] (there are
currently 12 ports left to upgrade [2]).

Maybe we could commit the patch without the DISTVERSION thing and no
PORTREVISION bump so that the port does not need to be rebuilt by end
users...

OTOH, the patch to set JAVA_VERSION in the launcher script is an actual
improvement to the port. And the JAVAJARDIR/JAVALIBDIR substitution is a
fix (same as PREFIX/LOCALBASE differenciation).

Herve


[1] Java ports monitoring
http://pages-perso.esil.univ-mrs.fr/~hquiroz/freebsd/java-ports-monitoring.html

[2] Java ports using bsd.java.mk 1.0 syntax and their respective maintainers
http://pages-perso.esil.univ-mrs.fr/~hquiroz/freebsd/oldbsdjavamk-maintainers
Comment 6 Mikhail Teterin 2006-05-31 16:43:55 UTC 
ÓÅÒÅÄÁ 31 ÔÒÁ×ÅÎØ 2006 08:09, Herve Quiroz ÎÁÐÉÓÁ×:
> Maybe we could commit the patch without the DISTVERSION thing and no
> PORTREVISION bump so that the port does not need to be rebuilt by end
> users...
>
> OTOH, the patch to set JAVA_VERSION in the launcher script is an actual
> improvement to the port. And the JAVAJARDIR/JAVALIBDIR substitution is a
> fix (same as PREFIX/LOCALBASE differenciation).

Ok, go ahead then... Thanks!

	-mi
Comment 7 Herve Quiroz freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2006-06-02 00:57:25 UTC 
State Changed
From-To: feedback->closed

Patch commited with no PORTVERSION or PORTREVISION bump.