Re: Question for java/eclipse build

thanks.  So I will keep "the old" way and integrate that there is a 
maven upgrade which affects newer builds...

Regards, Norbert

On 3/14/26 22:09, Mark Millard wrote:
> On 3/14/26 08:32, Norbert Grundmann wrote:
>> Hello Ronald,
>>
>> thanks for the comments...  :-)
>>
>> I think I will take another approach to build eclipse in future on
>> FreeBSD.  About 2-3 year ago I made a lot patches to make version 4.32
>> work - the previous one was 4.24.  It took a lot of hours.  After months
>> someone took over and created a github repository with FreeBSD stuff,
>> which I took as the basis.  The maintainer of that repo also creates
>> *.tar.gz files which contain a full FreeBSD compilation / package, but
>> not usable the pkg way.
> [My notes/questions below are general/generic, not based in a detailed
> analysis of java/eclipse details.]
>
> Such a file exists that includes the compilation/package for each and
> every combination of the following? [as things stand now]:
>
> ) supported arch for the port-package
>    (amd64 vs. aarch64 vs. i386 . . .)
>
> ) quarterly [2026Q1] (all but main below)
>    vs. latest (all 4 of the below, including main)
>
> ) 13.5, 14.3 (14.4 next), 15.0 (15.1 next), and main [so: 16.0 for now]
>
> Even limited to tier 1 platforms (amd64 and aarch64) that is 2*(3+4)==14
> combinations that each have a separate port-package built and
> distributed by the official FreeBSD build servers. Are all of those covered?
>
> (i386 is still having port-packages built for 13.5 and 14.3 as well.
> armv7 and the rest are not building such at all, according to
> <https://people.freebsd.org/~dbaio/pkg-master-report.html> and what it
> shows for " latest " and " quarterly ", no _ in those Set names.)
>
> And, different FreeBSD build servers can use different versions of the
> port-tree's in overlapping time frames for build activity. So each
> combination can get into dealing with that type of distinction as well.
>
> Are the *.tar.gz based on using the same OPTIONS settings as for
> official builds? What about other configuration details that might
> change the build results?
>
>> So why recompile?
> See above and more later below.
>
>> I want to take his *.tar.gz
>> file, extract and do the needed post-install steps.  The end should a
>> "normal" package usable for FreeBSD :-)
>>
>> The first steps of this approach seems to work...  I would like to check
>> before I submit and before other people would confirm, that it works.
>>
>> What do you think?  This way is more easy and does not use a long
>> compilation time - just seconds for download and prepare.  And it is
>> less error lasting ;-)
> I doubt that taking externally built binaries not built by the FreeBSD
> port-package build servers from a port that uses source code would be an
> acceptable security risk for the official FreeBSD ports folks to allow such.
>
> Also, it is not obvious that an externally built port-package is always
> built in a fully compatible way with the officially built dependencies
> that would be involved in each and every official bulk build. A similar
> point goes for various combinations listed above possibly using
> different tool chains to do builds. Also, how would the update timing
> manage to match with the FreeBSD build server bulk build runs for each
> of those combinations listed earlier? (They various combinations are not
> synchronized and, overall, span widely distinct build time frames.)
>
> Some port-packages that have java/eclipse as a dependency may also
> otherwise depend on some of the same dependencies that java/eclipse
> does. Mismatched versions of those need not be coherent for overall
> operation to actually run and work.
>
> At various times, quarterly and latest need not match for what versions
> of dependencies and/or tool-chains are needed.
>
> There is a lot involved in keeping the official port-package build
> combinations operational. Things to not arbitrarily mix and match in a
> working way.
>
>> Of course I will depend on this github repository and data.  But that I
>> did the last versions, too...
>>
>> Regards, Norbert
>>
>> On 3/13/26 13:52, Ronald Klop wrote:
>>> Rereading your mail I saw some more concerns you mention.
>>>
>>> 1. When developing your port for main it can be easier to install
>>> dependencies for main also. That gives consistency to what is upstream.
>>> 2. As long as the maintainer of maven39 does not merge the changes to
>>> the quarterly branch, you don't need to do anything for quarterly. But
>>> keep the 4.38 tag unchanged in github.
>>> 3. Your https://github.com/NorbertXYZ/eclipse repo has a nice
>>> README.md, maybe add something similar to the eclipse-maven repo with
>>> instructions to your future self on how you did things. 😀 I totally
>>> recognize going back to some project years later and wondering how
>>> things worked.
>>>
>>> If you get stuck, there are probably some people here or on java@ that
>>> want to help further.
>>>
>>> NB: it can really help to keep ports@ in the cc:, if you want feedback
>>> from others too.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ronald.
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>

-- 
I love penguins at the south pole, windows in my house and apples on my tree, but not in my computer :)