Jacob Meuser <jakemsr <at> jakemsr.com> writes: > > why are you specifying AUTOMAKE_VERSION and AUTOCONF_VERSION > if you aren't using automake or autoconf? >
I copied the Makefile from another port I was working on; I was expecting the worse :) > > wouldn't java be a more appropriate category than devel? > Yes; I started out thinking that java would be the right category. But: jdk, jakarta-servletapi, apache-ant. are in devel; jikes and kaffe are in lang; and fastjar is in archivers. Go figure. Majority rules? It might make send to put them all under java. > > port directories do not have version numbers. sometimes there > may be foo/bar and foo/bar2 or some such, but those only exist if > there is good reason to have two "generations" of a package in > the ports tree. > Good comment; I'm anticipating the need for multiple releases. Classpath is a moving target. They've been producing developer release every two months. Although 0.19 sounds like they are just getting started they are 96% of the way to a conforming JDK 1.4 class library, and within five mauve tests of a conforming JDK 1.2. So I expect to see at least two more classpath developer releases *before* OpenBSD 3.9. On the other side of the coin is the jit/jvm space. There is a very strong push for jit/jvm developers to operate out of the box with the classpath releases. Some projects are already there, others are about to catch up. Before 0.19 most projects did a special classpath integration. So, for example, you see gcc 3.4 stuck back at something like 0.12; btw gcc 4.1 will take classpath out of the box soon; cacao-0.93 already does. Kaffe is getting there (so I hear.) JamVM is easy because it already was there. All this is to say that here's classpath/0.19 and expect classpath/0.20 and /0.21 about 6 months out, depending on the timing of the jits and jvms. "Lots of harmony." There is also the related issue of parallel installations, which I have not addressed yet and won't until I get a second jit/jvm in play.
