David Walluck <david@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I was asked to make sure that tanukiwrapper and libreadline-java were > up to date for F10. > > What I found is that there is no consistent policy for either .so > location or .jar location for Java packages in Fedora. There is a policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI but some existing packages may not follow it. > Here are some examples: > > Library location: > > eclipse: /usr/lib64/eclipse Eclipse is a special case. Andrew Overholt can comment on this. > jss: /usr/lib64 > libreadline-java: /usr/lib64/libreadline-java > tanukiwrapper: /usr/lib64 > > Jar location: > > eclipse: /usr/lib64/java > jss: /usr/lib/java > libreadline-java: /usr/lib64/libreadline-java > tanukiwrapper: /usr/share/java Ideally jss and tanukiwrapper would be updated to follow the packaging guidelines. > I believe that libreadline-java was meant to be the model for the JNI > policy, but the problem is that jpackage-utils (build-classpath) does > not seem to be updated to work with the new jar location. What is the symptom of this problem? > NB: I tested on F9, so if this has changed, let me know. > > We have very little time to do anything about this before the F10 > freeze, so I suggest we take the path of least-resistance, e.g., we > have to move libreadline-java back I'm not sure what you mean by this. > since we would not be able to update all the packages and the tools > and make sure that they work in time for F10. Tom -- fedora-devel-java-list mailing list fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
