port "cask" -- installing prebuilt binaries

[Christopher Chavez]

On 8/5/2020 8:12 AM, Lothar Haeger wrote:
>
>> Am 05.08.2020 um 14:52 schrieb Georges Martin <jrjsmrtn at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jrjsmrtn at gmail.com>>:
>>
>> If MacPorts starts to mix both approaches, I worry we may end up
>> having (open source) packages depending on closed source, binary
>> packages. And have less control on ensuring a consistent, compatible
>> distribution.
>
> That's already the case e.g. with port that use one of the openjdk*
> ports as dependency. Also, basically all ports using portgroup java
> depend on a binary java distribution. I'd rather see the dependencies
> being part of the macports tree, so we can at least control versions and
> variants, than trying to keep the depending ports out of MP.
>
> To minimize this risk, I guess Macports could exclude binary ports from
> being used as dependencies to other ports. As soon as such ports are
> reliably recognizable, that is. There should be a way to allow such
> dependencies on a port by port basis, though.


While OpenJDK is not closed-source, the sentiment here appears to be
that MacPorts is treating it as if it were closed-source.

Regarding Java ports specifically: they normally do not specify an exact
Java distribution to use. By using the Java portgroup (which they should
if they don't already), they only specify what versions of Java they're
compatible with, and a fallback Java distribution to install only if a
compatible Java distribution isn't already installed (whether through
MacPorts, or outside of it—e.g. Oracle JDK). Someone could potentially
build Java from source if they wanted to, and then MacPorts would use
that as the Java distribution for these ports.

I would keep in mind the tradeoff between the limited effort available
from maintainers/volunteers and "control" (often entailing duplication
of effort).