On 2008-Jun-24 00:16:51 +0200, Alexey Shuvaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >From a partial reading of the email thread, it looks like the simplest >> thing to do is to just not set BUILD_DEPENDS if it finds an appropriately >> installed JDK. That way it will only set it if it can't find a bootstrap >> JDK and it needs one installed. >> >This is achieved with attached 3-line patch. I have roughly tested it >with "make -V BUILD_DEPENDS". It produces reasonable results on a system >with jdk1.5.0 (no dependency on diablo) and on a system without any >java at all (there is a dependency on diablo).It is trivial, but nevertheless, >any real battlefield testing (upgrading real systems, >tinderbox package building)? Review from someone experienced? > >Alexey.
>--- Makefile.orig 2008-06-23 10:33:59.000000000 +0200
>+++ Makefile 2008-06-23 10:34:36.000000000 +0200
>@@ -108,9 +108,8 @@
> # if no valid jdk found, set dependency
> .if !defined(BOOTSTRAPJDKDIR)
> BOOTSTRAPJDKDIR?= ${LOCALBASE}/diablo-jdk1.5.0
>-.endif
>-
> BUILD_DEPENDS+=
> ${BOOTSTRAPJDKDIR}/bin/javac:${PORTSDIR}/java/diablo-jdk15
>+.endif
>
> .if defined(WITHOUT_WEB)
> MAKE_ENV+= DONT_BUILD_DEPLOY="YES"
With this patch, portmaster successfully upgraded jdk-1.5.0.14p8,1 to
jdk-1.5.0.14p8_2,1, without installing diablo.
--
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
pgp5kbONSUZKS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
