Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

java/openjdk8 + 11: Remove USE_LDCONFIG from ports
ClosedPublic

Authored by haraldei on Fri, Aug 14, 10:24 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Aug 25, 2:45 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Aug 25, 1:23 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Aug 24, 6:07 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Aug 23, 8:03 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Aug 23, 8:03 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Aug 23, 4:57 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Aug 22, 5:38 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Aug 22, 2:48 PM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

OpenJDK loads the JVM and other JDK libraries explicitly from the
correct directories, so there's no need for adding them to ldconfig.

PR: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=297282
Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation

Diff Detail

Repository
R11 FreeBSD ports repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 75585
Build 72468: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

haraldei created this revision.

This looks good to me. One nit: In the commit log, PR: expects only the bug number to automatically update the bug, not the full URL.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Fri, Aug 14, 5:01 PM
In D58841#1350374, @jrm wrote:

One nit: In the commit log, PR: expects only the bug number to automatically update the bug, not the full URL.

Thanks, I'll fix before pushing.

The patch is rejected because of the subject line: "java/openjdk8 + 11: ..." Should I split it in two, or is there an established way of marking that it affects more than one port?

It's probably the spaces before the : catching the subject line hook. You could either get rid of those spaces, or use java/openjdk{8,11}: Remove USE_LDCONFIG from ports, which is a format I see in the logs.

In D58841#1350633, @jrm wrote:

It's probably the spaces before the : catching the subject line hook. You could either get rid of those spaces, or use java/openjdk{8,11}: Remove USE_LDCONFIG from ports, which is a format I see in the logs.

Thanks! That makes sense, and seemed to work :)

In D58841#1352268, @vvd wrote:

Ooops, that wasn't intended, I'm looking into it!