* Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> [2014-07-29 11:24]:
> On 07/29/2014 04:59 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> >>>Then the most simple way is to provide symlinks in
> >>>java-1.{7,8}.0-openjdk spec
> >>>
> >>>from /usr/lib/jni | /usr/lib64/jni, -to> /usr/lib/jvm/java..../... ?
> >
> >>Is it a good idea to install files from RPMs through a symbolic link?
> >
> >We could use the alternatives mechanism for this.
>
> How so and why?
For the how, alternatives allows creating symlinks. Basically, you give
it a 'master' symlink name and the 'alternative' path it could point to.
It then automagically selects the 'best' path to map that symlink to. We
use it extensively in the openjdk RPMS.
As for the why, it was merely a suggestion on how that scheme described
above could be implemented.
I am not sure I entirely agree with the proposed scheme just yet... In
fact, it looks somewhat incorrect. /usr/lib{,64}/jni is where packages
install JNI .so files, but /usr/lib/jvm/java..../ is a JDK-specific
path, and not suitable for installing packages into.
> >>I
> >>suspect it's not, which would mean we'd have to use the upstream default
> >>"/usr/java/packages/lib/amd64" in spec files (probably using a macro). If
> >>that path is acceptable, it would be fine with me as well, but it looks a
> >>bit ugly to me.
> >
> >We can change (add and remove from) this path in the JDKs that we ship,
> >if we have to.
>
> It would be nice to preserve compatibility with proprietary JDKs, too.
If it helps, changes we manage to push into OpenJDK should show up
sooner or later in proprietary JDKs. That said, I agree, a scheme that
makes it harder to use proprietary JDKs would undo a lot of work Fedora
(and JPackage) have put into the Java packaging guidelines.
Thanks,
Omair
--
PGP Key: 66484681 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
Fingerprint = F072 555B 0A17 3957 4E95 0056 F286 F14F 6648 4681
--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
