[fedora-java] FC2, /usr/bin/rmic when no java rpm -- why?

[Joel]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:02:40 -0500
Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim at redhat.com> wrote

> On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 14:49 +0900, Joel wrote:
> > My question on this in developers' and users' 
> > 
> >     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fedora-devel-list&m=110895336513499&w=2
> >     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fedora-list&m=110872040326418&w=2
> > 
> > didn't seem to be greeted with any enthusiasm, so I'll repeat it here,
> > now that I know there is a here.
> > 
> > FC2, no java rpm installed, and I don't recall installing all the
> > compilers when I installed FC2 on a wiped disk.
> > 
> > But I do have rmic and jar (and rmic34/jar34) in /usr/bin. These are not
> > symbolic links, and there is no reference to them in the setup files for
> > alternatives. 
> > 
> > From searching the archives, I see that the consensus is that they are
> > safe to remove. 
> > 
> > What else should I look for? 
> > 
> > And should I file this as a bug if I get a chance to confirm that they
> > are there without installing any java rpm?
> > 
> > (They really do get in the way.)
> 
> Yeah, this is fixed in upstream gcc bugzilla by renaming them grmic,
> grmiregistry and fastjar. 

That's good to know, and good to be able to report to my co-workers.

> They are "safe" to remove provided you are
> using some alternate rmic, rmiregistry and jar implementations. 

... as in the Sun-standard distribution. (And someone on Sun's jmx list
tells me that rmic is now built into the standard javac compiler and the
proxies are generated at runtime, or something. That's goint to take a
little digesting.)

> You
> should really prepend non-standard path entries to PATH though -- that
> is the workaround.

I've already done that, but it always bothers me to have things in the
path in advance of /bin and /usr/bin. Call me paranoid.

Thanks.

--
Joel Rees   <rees at ddcom.co.jp>
digitcom, inc.   株式会社デジコム
Kobe, Japan   +81-78-672-8800
** <http://www.ddcom.co.jp> **