Opened 12 months ago
Closed 12 months ago
#68449 closed defect (fixed)
java portgroup: option java.enforce: determine whether still needed; if so, refine comments
Reported by: | ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt) | Owned by: | mascguy (Christopher Nielsen) |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | |
Keywords: | Cc: | chrstphrchvz (Christopher Chavez), catap (Kirill A. Korinsky) | |
Port: | java |
Description
Comments at the top of the java portgroup read:
# Sometimes a port hard code inside produces scripts and other files used JVM, # then its true use java.enforce to enforce dependency.
I can't understand what that's trying to say; it needs to be reworded.
Change History (9)
comment:1 Changed 12 months ago by chrstphrchvz (Christopher Chavez)
comment:2 Changed 12 months ago by chrstphrchvz (Christopher Chavez)
Cc: | chrstphrchvz added |
---|
comment:3 Changed 12 months ago by chrstphrchvz (Christopher Chavez)
Removal proposed: https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/20865
comment:4 Changed 12 months ago by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen)
Cc: | mascguy catap added |
---|
As mentioned in the PR, but to reiterate for all: We should not simply remove/undo changes made by others, without keeping them in-the-loop.
That includes both on tickets, as well as PRs.
And ultimately we need to give folks an opportunity to elaborate on their original changes, before moving ahead.
comment:5 follow-up: 6 Changed 12 months ago by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen)
As for the grammatical issues, we also need to respect that not everyone is a native English speaker.
So we should try to be kind, and assist when necessary, with such things.
comment:6 Changed 12 months ago by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen)
Replying to mascguy:
As for the grammatical issues, we also need to respect that not everyone is a native English speaker.
So we should try to be kind, and assist when necessary, with such things.
Indeed, since I merged the original PR, I could have refined the wording of the comments. So that's on me.
comment:7 Changed 12 months ago by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen)
Summary: | java portgroup: Unintelligible comments → java portgroup: option java.enforce: determine whether still needed; if so, refine comments |
---|
comment:8 Changed 12 months ago by mascguy (Christopher Nielsen)
Cc: | mascguy removed |
---|---|
Owner: | set to mascguy |
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:9 Changed 12 months ago by chrstphrchvz (Christopher Chavez)
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
This was https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/20051
My guess is that the comment meant to say that if a port’s build outputs have hardcoded filepaths from the
java.fallback
port, then setjava.enforce
for the port to always depend onjava.fallback
, regardless of whether Java already present on the system.If I understand the intention of this option correctly, then I do not see how it is desirable, and I am in favor of removing it. I agree with Nils Breun that such hardcoding in build outputs should be avoided.
And as currently implemented,
java.enforce
does not actually force the port to build usingjava.fallback
, because it does not forceJAVA_HOME
to point tojava.fallback
rather than some other Java installation.java.enforce
is not used by any ports; it was only ever used in abcl, but not since an alternative was found: https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/20089/files#diff-0869457f20b83a77c7320b01a92bbc4d7c15feb5489b8bd32880305e94bab285R53