Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

java/openjdk8 + 11: Remove USE_LDCONFIG from ports
ClosedPublic

Authored by haraldei on Aug 14 2026, 10:24 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Sep 17, 2:56 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Sep 16, 1:14 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Sep 13, 2:47 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Sep 12, 4:55 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Sep 11, 12:56 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Sep 10, 11:33 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Sep 9, 12:50 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Sep 8, 9:57 AM
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.Aug 14 2026, 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!