[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Goal: Increased Modularity?



Le mercredi 05 septembre 2007 à 10:23 -0600, Richi Plana a écrit :
> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 11:12 -0500, Les Mikesell 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?
> 
> It seems the current convention is to put the JAVA packages
> under /usr/lib/jvm/(java|jre)-<majversion>-<vendor>-<majminversion> with
> certain packages going to /usr/lib/jvm-exports/
> and /usr/lib/jvm-private/
> 
> Who's convention is this, anyway?

Originally, mine when I was active @jpp and was packaging jvms 

>  And what's it called?

You know, you're the first person to ask this question I know of:)

The layout and its intent is described in the jpackage-1.5-policy
document shipped with jpackage utils. IIRC I wrote this file a week
after baking the layout and the associated shell scripts, so that would
date its definition around March 10, 2003.

I never thought of giving it a name. Today that would be JPackage
conventions for most people.

> It seems Fedora
> and jpackage both honor this convention (and alternatives uses it. Or
> maybe it's the other way around ... this convention uses was designed
> around alternatives).

Fedora Java packaging as it's known today is a JPackage fork
(periodically rebased). The Red Hat Java group originally started from
its own package repository IIRC, but struggled to package the Java world
and decided later to use a JPackage base as its repo was more complete.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]