Goal: Increased Modularity?
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Sep 6 06:08:14 UTC 2007
Le mercredi 05 septembre 2007 à 15:34 -0500, Les Mikesell a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>>>> I want to know the correct JAVA_HOME and PATH settings for all the
> >>>>> possible JVMs when they are installed as alternatives-conforming RPM
> >>>>> packages but are not the system default. Is this documented somewhere?
> >> So, where do I find the answer to the question above regarding the
> >> correct JAVA_HOME and PATH to use a JVM that is not the system default?
> > If the question is "what is the list of the roots of all the possible
> > JVMs that may be released for Linux and packaged using jpp conventions"
> > – no one has the answer because no one knows the JVM list in the first
> > place.
> OK, but how about the answer for the known universe of JVM's included in
> the fedora/RHEL repositories plus the jpackage repository, including
> the ones that don't actually contain the JVM, but do determine the
> location where it will be installed?
For the FLOSS ones you can use yum tricks
For the non-FLOSS ones you have to assemble them yourself starting from
the non-free material @jpp, and you can check the paths at the same
A jpp-style repository does *not* maintain a central JVM list. That's
how it was done before I wrote the "new" guidelines in 2003 and it was
hell to maintain. In a jpp-style repository any jvm that drops
directories in the right place may be used through alternatives, but the
rest of the system need not care about the jvms that may or may not be
packaged this way.
If you want to bring back central lists from the dead you're welcome to
try, but anyone who touched pre-1.5 jpp won't follow you. For more
information, read jpackage-discuss archives around march 2003.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
More information about the fedora-devel-list