Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Package removal candidates
To: Thomas Klausner <>
From: Jim Wise <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/06/2005 15:05:19
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Thomas Klausner wrote:

>On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:21:07PM -0500, Jim Wise wrote:
>> This would be a perfectly reasonable contract change, were it what were 
>> implemented -- heck, it's the contract which _is_ documented in the 
>> sample mk.conf we provide (and have provided for years):
>>   #JAVA_HOME=
>>   # Location of jvm to be used by pkgsrc.  Java-based packages will be installed
>>   # in ${LOCALBASE}/lib/java, so that they are available to all jvms.
>>   # 
>>   # Possible: any directory
>>   # Default: home of JVM chosen by ${PKG_JVM}
>I'll remove this shortly -- it hasn't been true for years now (
>was committed before 2003). Setting the JAVA_HOME variable is not enough
>for pkgsrc to do proper dependency handling.

Given that this package built on the bulk build machines until April of 
last year, and still builds fine in manual builds here, I'm sure pkgsrc 
correctly provided this variable in the bulk build environment until 

Given this, what changed at that point?  Nothing in the package itself.

And if the addition of this to ALL_ENV is working during bulk builds, 
why has devel/eclipse (as Dieter points out), like several other 
packages, been modified to set it manually?  Why do so many other 
packages patch third party Makefiles to reference PKG_JAVA_HOME instead 
of JAVA_HOME, a step which should be no more necessary than modifying 
third party Makefiles which refer to `CC'?

In any case, at the end of the day, what we have is a claim that a 
package should be removed on account of a problem occurs _only_ in bulk 
builds, right?

- -- 
				Jim Wise
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (NetBSD)