On 12/15/2014 12:06 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Markus Koschany <apo@gambaru.de> wrote: > [...] >> Actually what was the reasoning behind the choice to use a custom shell >> script like jarwrapper instead of jexec to register executable jars with >> binfmt-misc? This question also came up in the bug report. > > Here is my guess: > `jexec` only works with openjdk installed. At one point debian had > multiple java implementation (sun, kaffe...). These days only two > really remains, so maybe an easier solution would be to have a > `gcj-exec` provided by `gcj-jdk` to mimic openjdk package. Which means > it would be much easier to handle the LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue within the > `gcj-exec` executable. > > jarwrapper is only really needed with a custom jre installation... That sounds reasonable to me, although it can be hard in practice to keep things functional for users running non-Debian JRE packages. Which is not to say that we shouldn't generally discourage jarwrapper... Cheers, tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature