[icedtea-web] RFC: add javaws and itweb-settings to jre/bin as well

Omair Majid omajid at redhat.com
Wed Dec 15 07:28:35 PST 2010

On 12/14/2010 06:38 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> Generally looks good.  I'd move the JAVA_ARGS definition to a new line
> to make it easier to read.  It also may be worth using the more general
> java.icedtea-web.bindir or java.itw.bindir as the property as it's not
> specific to javaws.

I have moved the JAVA_ARGS to a new line. I am using 
java.icedtea-web.bin as the property name now.

> Ok to commit with the JAVA_ARGS change.  Your choice on the property.

Thanks, I have pushed the change to HEAD. Will push to 1.0 after more 

>> I dont see why/how anyone would install into a prefix that does not
>> already contain a JDK. I tried out installing to a prefix without an
>> existing /jre/ (i.e. installing to anything other than a jdk) and it
>> makes javaws fail on start up. Currently the error is :
>> ./javaws: error while loading shared libraries: libjli.so: cannot open
>> shared object file: No such file or directory
>> But I suppose that even if libjli was found, it would fail complaining
>> that it cannot find a VM.
> My other patch (for IcedTea7) removes the libjli dependency FWIW.
> I'm not sure how much of a problem this is.  When producing a VisualVM RPM
> for Fedora, there was an issue with installing to the JRE tree and it ended
> up being moved to /usr.  So this consideration is preattempting that happening
> again.

As far as I am aware, both plugin and javaws will break in all sorts of 
ways if they are not placed in a JDK-style directory. Of course, we 
would like to fix this, but it doesnt seem possible for the 1.0 release. 
Deepak is planning to address this in the 1.2 timeframe.

> Can someone with more packaging experience please comment on this?  Is
> the jdk location a usable prefix for package installation?

Well, that's where the contents of IcedTea-Web were installed 
previously. I dont see the big problem with installing them in the same 
place now that we have split off the code. I still dont know why the 
visualvm change was made :/


More information about the distro-pkg-dev mailing list