Re: JAVA_HOME... why?

[Rik]

On 12/11/2012 01:35 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:24:33 -0500
> From: Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso <address@hidden>
> To: Octave Maintainers List <address@hidden>
> Subject: JAVA_HOME... why?
> Message-ID:
>       <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Can someone please explain to me again why we need JAVA_HOME? Why is
> jni.h special and can't be installed and used like any other system
> header? I can understand setting it if your Java installation is in a
> non-default location, but it's really strange that the current trend
> is to be telling anyone who builds Octave that they have to make sure
> JAVA_HOME is set correctly; moreso for configure to be complaining
> about it when it's not. The configure script doesn't complain if I
> don't have QT_HOME or FFTW_HOME set correctly; why is Java special? I
> am able to build Octave with Java support without JAVA_HOME. Why can't
> anyone else?
>
> I'm not saying this is a stupid thing; I just want to understand the problem.
12/11/12

Jordi,

I think it really is this bad.  Without guidance, by setting JAVA_HOME, the
Java JDK might be anywhere on the file system.  Part of the trouble seems
to be that there wasn't a standard for where to put the JDK, as opposed to
the java binary which had to go somewhere on the PATH.  In addition,
whatever standardization there was from the fact that Linux and Solaris
were Unix-like systems has been rendered moot by Apple ("Think Different!")
and their choice of file locations.

The reason configuration worked automatically on Debian was that there were
hardcoded paths especially for that distribution.

--Rik


- Jordi G. H.