Building Java ports from sources or not ?

[Herve Quiroz]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:41:07PM -0800, Chris Doherty wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:21:39PM +0100, Herve Quiroz said: 
> > I was wondering if it is actually relevant to try and build Java ports
> > from source. Indeed I used to agree with this policy (mostly because it
> > allows the user to be sure that all dependencies are installed as well)
> > but it is quite painful to maintain.
> ...
> > So do we need to agree on some common policy or is it a "per-case"
> > issue?
> 
> seems like a per-case thing to me, and up to the port maintainer--I don't
> think the port maintainers are obligated to have a port build from source
> if binary works just as well, and I know in my case I don't need to wait
> an hour (slow machine) to get an Ant package identical to a binary.
> 
> like the old cvsup-bin port was a real time- and space-saver for those of
> us who didn't need to wait a day and end up with modula-3 installed.

I didn't even think of build time issues. That's another good point.

> if there are no functionality or security issues, I'd vote for
> maintainer's choice. I guess you'd be kind of hosed if you wanted to
> install from source, though...maybe use the source distro to compile your
> own binary package or something.

I agree with you. So unless someone else bring me some good arguments
regarding built-from-sources Java ports, I going to make most of my
maintained Java ports in binary form (which is already the case BTW).

Thanks for your reply.

Herve