Ola Lundqvist writes: > Hi > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 11:22:37PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Ola Lundqvist writes: > > > -rw-r--r-- root/root 77508 2006-11-16 20:38 ./usr/include/jvmti.h > > > -rw-r--r-- root/root 68996 2006-11-16 20:38 ./usr/include/jni.h > > > drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-11-16 20:38 ./usr/include/linux/ > > > -rw-r--r-- root/root 1780 2006-11-16 20:38 > > > ./usr/include/linux/jni_md.h > > > -rw-r--r-- root/root 13258 2006-11-16 20:38 ./usr/include/jmm.h > > > > that is definitely wrong. please move these to a private area. > > Ok, if they are private, should they be included at all?
yes, every jdk provides them. you usually want them installed, but in a directory where these can be access by a specific include only. > > > drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2006-11-16 20:38 > > > ./usr/lib/openjdk-hotspot-jvm/ > > > > why -jvm? is there a separate dir for -jdk? > > Because the package name is -jvm. It has no jdk functionality as it is not > released yet. maybe. but different directories for jvm and jdk are a bad idea. please have a look at the java-gcj-compat and sun-java5 packages. both jre and jdk should install into a common directory. > > please provide the jvm in /usr/lib/jvm, as we currently do for the > > majority of packaged runtimes. > > Oh such a directory exist. I'll move it there. I'll check the other jvms > to see how they handle the structure. that would be nice. I had a chat with Tom Marble how to better handle the set of alternatives forming a runtime or a jdk, but none of us did write down a proposal yet. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
