Changes in Java packaging guidelines - RFC

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at
Wed Nov 3 19:49:57 UTC 2010

Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 21:32 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
> On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le mercredi 03 novembre 2010 à 19:27 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
> > > 3) In my opinion, the whole alternatives setup in the JRE and SDK
> > > packages should be purged.  It's a relic from times that are long gone,
> > 
> > Having a semi-sane way to install multi-vendor multi-version JVMs is
> > still needed EPEL side. Expensive apps like SAP still make you install
> > the specific JVM they've been qualified against.
> But such JVMs do not need to be made the system default at all, people can 
> just run $expensive_app with it by whatever means they like (e.g. direct 
> modification of $PATH, $JAVA_HOME, etc _for that specific app_).

When you pass a certain level of expensiveness, ISVs just assume the
*only* jvm on the system will be the one they require (quite simply the
software price is many times the price of hardware, so there is no
reason to share the hardware with anything else).

It never ceases to astonish me how software “giants” have come to depend
on the quick and dirty hacks we did JPackage-side æons agos, and never
thought of redirecting some of their huge cash flow to fund something a
little more robust. Then again, given how it would have likely ended
(lsb, foo-grade linux), maybe it's better that way.

Nicolas Mailhot

More information about the devel mailing list