[arch-general] Concurrent java environments

w9ya at qrparci.net w9ya at qrparci.net
Sun Feb 24 11:58:24 EST 2008

Comments inserted, where it seems prudent, below:

> Hi,

Hey there !!;

>> I see a HUGE headache is asking the user to deal with "changing paths"
>> just so a few users can have two java implementations installed. Or
>> even worse asking some sort of software to 'automagically' switch such
>> declarations. there is nothing but grief in going that route with
>> little to gain except for those highly specific usages of a untypical
>> and quite unusual user such as yourself.
>> i.e. There is nothing whatsoever K.I.S.S. in what you are asking for.
>> And ArchLinux is *very* SPECIFICALLY a K.I.S.S. style distribution.
>> however all is not lost for you since there *IS* both abs AND a way to
>> track specialized PKGBUILDs on specific and particular machines. A
>> user such as yourself CAN (!) choose to do the things YOU desire
>> without asking Arch to accommodate what you ask for. i.e. You can do
>> this for yourself quite easily using the Arch-way once you determine
>> EXACTLY how to accomplish your configuration. I would suggest you read
>> up on customizing PKGBUILDs so you can facilitate YOUR specific needs.
> I think you misunderstood my intentions. I certainly don't want users to
> deal with changing paths if that was what it took. But I don't think
> this is necessary. The way I see it is this: now users can have one and
> only one java implementation. They can choose whether it is based on
> GNU's gcj+classpath or Sun's jre/jdk. Either way as long is the java
> application is "sane" and doesn't need Java 6 features (which are afaik
> not included in gcj), it will run OK.

I dunno anything about your intentions, and they are not particularly
relevant to discussing what you want either as far as I can tell.

O.K.. on your saying no path declarations. I am glad we can agree on that.

> If Arch provided a way to have both environments installed, nothing
> needs to be changed for normal users. They would choose one of the
> environments and everything would run as smoothly as it does now,
> that's the beauty of it and I don't see where it contradicts KISS.

Nor do I if NOTHING installing these two programs creates NO need to
change anything related to messing with system environmental settings.
SO....I guess I didn't understand you earlier about the $PATH stuff being
required so as not to break things.

> Only some users who want to have more choice would install both
> environments. There would have to be one default, frankly I don't care
> which but probably it would be easier if it was the GNU's because it is
> in /usr/bin. If such an advanced user needed to run some application
> under Sun's java, they would probably only need to write a simple
> script which would put /opt/java/bin at the start of $PATH and perhaps
> set $JAVA_HOME. But this wouldn't have to be done by all users like you
> were saying, I would never suggest something like that.


Looks like you REALLY DID mean for $PATH to be changing !! If not I am
clearly confused.

And even that confusion would not be so bad, BUT what you SEEM to be
proposing does NOT appear be clear as to when, and to what, and why any
specific setting would be better or more useful in any particular machine.
<- Until those things are clearly defined, (which you do not seem to have
clearly presented herein btw,) I would suggest that any changes are not
desired at this time.

Or put as succinctly as I can muster; I just do NOT understand what it is
you want because the details seem to be missing, and your meaning is not
clear, to me, without more details.

> So actually I disagree, I think what I'm asking still complies to KISS.
> I mean one of the points of using Linux is to have a choice - you can
> choose your distribution, you can choose your favorite video player, you
> can choose your favorite PDF reader and you can choose to install three
> or five of them so that you can switch if you have a video file that
> your favorite player is unable to play or a PDF file that your favorite
> PDF reader has trouble printing. One of the reasons I chose ArchLinux
> was because it has so many packages available and most of them I can
> have installed at the same time. That's why I'm surprised that such a
> decision was taken not because there was some technical difficulty but
> because somebody felt that (almost) no one needs more than one java.

IF you have create odd issues with $PATH due to which of two different
programs are installed that ostensibly do the same thing, well then that
is no longer K.I.S.S. IMHO.

EXACTLY to the point:

But there really is a solution. *Script* up what you want things to work
like and submit that to the developers.

If the $PATH stuff, removal of any Conflict field in the various
PKGBUILDs, and whatnot -> all result in things NOT getting broken in the
process; Well I rather think you will have not only gotten what you ask
for, but will have  given all of us a solution you can be proud of.

And I will have learned something new in the process, and will be grateful
for the lesson.

> Yes you're right, there is ABS and I can just rebuild my own jre/jdk
> packages. The only problem is - one of the other reasons why I chose
> ArchLinux was that the major "everyday" packages are prepared and I
> don't have to compile them myself. And it feels rather strange (and
> actually this I find a little contradictory to KISS) having to rebuild
> both packages with the only change to the PKGBUILDs in the way that I
> would change their "conflicts" line (perhaps I could actually use the
> binary packages and tell pacman to ignore dependencies).

Cool, that was the more important point of my earlier message to you. If
things are not the way you want them with Arch, the package management
instead of being adverse to changes from the normative setup, actually
encourages and easily allows for YOUR special needs.

i.e. You need NOT go to developers to solve the conundrum you are asking for.

> In conclusion, I don't want to fight or argue or be offensive in any
> way. If I'm missing something important that would make life of other
> users more complicated, please tell me. But so far I don't see what it
> is in my request (actually it started as more of a question really) that
> would complicate things for users that want to have only one java
> installed (which would be probably the most of them).

And I am very glad you got the necessary point about ANYONE being able to
use the Arch supplied tools to craft a solution to the issue you wanted to

Very best regards;

Bob Finch

> Ondøej
> --
> Regards,
> Ondøej Kuèera

More information about the arch-general mailing list