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

Re: Goal: Increased Modularity?



On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 01:57 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I could have sworn I ran into dependencies on specific JVM versions when 
> trying to install some packages from the jpackage repo.  How can that be 
> if you don't keep track of the JVMs themselves?  Or if the packages are 
> supposed to be usable with unpackaged JVMs?
> 
> I don't particularly care how the files are managed or where they live. 
>   I'm just trying to learn how to find what alternatives are available 
> and how to access them when certain apps require different JVMs and you 
> want to run them at the same time - and I haven't found much 
> documentation on the topic.

As far as I know, there's the gcj version that comes with Fedora. Fedora
8 will / might have the IcedTea version but is already available for
download from fedora-development (rawhide). If you scroll down to the
"Non-Free" section of JPackage.org
(http://www.jpackage.org/browser/browse.php?jppversion=1.7 or the older
http://www.jpackage.org/browser/browse.php?jppversion=1.6), you'll find
that there are JVMs available from Sun, IBM and BEA. Those JVMs aren't
packaged with the binaries because of some licensing thing (I'm
guessing). You'll have to download the packages from the source website
and build the Fedora RPM packages using the nosrc.rpm's that JPackage
provides.

Those are the alternative JVMs that I'm aware of. I can see why they
might put JVM-specific dependencies on some packages. I've had Eclipse
break on me using IBM's JVM (ironically) but work on Sun's. JPackage
just can't package the binaries.
--

Richi Plana


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