Re: findjava requirement (was: 4. RfD for a new debian java policy)
> IMO you don't need to use teh alternative system, if you just 'work
> around' it. YMMV...
Well, IMO the alternative system exists so that users don't need to
learn how each different package works around it in its own different
way. Instead it provides a standard system for setting system-wide
defaults.
> It's supported, but I don'T think that should be the default.
> findjava does the following now:
> * look into env for a JAVA_OVERWRITE_VM
> * source the $HOME/.findjavarc and look into env for JAVA_OVERWRITE_VM
> * put the user pref java package first into teh serach path
> * search the searchpath for a working VM
> * first with 'OPTION' (server and client just now)
> * just teh first available
There are two different user settings we were discussing:
1) Specify a JVM for this specific run, to be used regardless of whether
it's in the list of known working JVMs. This is $JAVA_OVERWRITE_VM as I
understand from your description.
2) Have a system-wide "default JVM" that is always used when it is in
the list of known working JVMs. This is what I was proposing we use
the alternative /usr/bin/java for. Is this currently supported by
findjava?
This system-wide default allows a sysadmin to say "use gij as the
default JVM unless it's not known to work, in which case use one of the
ones that the packager suggests". And of course it allows users to
override the sysadmin's decision through $JAVA_OVERWRITE_VM.
> >> * The fallback will result in unrecognised error messages (see above)
> >What is the fallback for findjava then? How will this be any better?
>
> Nothing: It will at least give proper error messages... It shouldn't
> happen with package management though.
This is precisely what would have happened in the for loop we were
arguing about, FWIW. i.e., it would have exited the for loop without
finding a JVM (in which case you display a friendly error message).
> The 'findjava' algo was described in one of my mail.
Hmm, I remember seeing it but I don't remember anyone suggesting that it
be made compulsory. There have been a lot of emails in this thread most
of which have identical topics. :) Anyway, we're discussing it now. :)
Okay, I'll take a look now at the scripts you've uploaded.
Ben. :)
Reply to: