[lsb-discuss] LSB 3.2 Compliance Report: Sun JRE 6 (update 5) on x86
Jeff Licquia
jeff at licquia.org
Thu May 1 13:48:43 PDT 2008
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> I missed one little point here...
>
>> Alexey Khoroshilov wrote
> ...
>> The action items for the JRE development team are as follows:
> ...
>> *AI-2-6.* Change installation location from /usr/java/jre1.6.0_05 to
>> /opt/[sun|java]/jre1.6.0_05 according to FHS.
> Uh, no,...
>
> There are two resolutions to this.
>
> - If Java becomes a specified part of the LSB, then it belongs
> somewhere under /usr, not /opt (and certainly not in a directory named
> "sun"). Its not an optional component, right?
Correct. Java as supplied to fulfill a requirement for distributions
will be in /usr/bin, /usr/lib, and so on. Even as a trial-use module
(should that happen), it would be expected to live in those places if
provided.
> - If Java does not become a specified part of the LSB, then it stays
> exactly where it is. Sun Java selected the /usr/java installation point
> long before the FSH existed. It is not appropriate to incompatibly
> change this due to a guideline (not a requirement) in the FSH - yes, we
> (Sun) believe this strongly in compatibility. (Actually, by my reading
> of the FSH, we are compliant,... its the nuances of shall vs. should.)
From the FHS, chapter 4, first section ("Purpose"):
"Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the
/usr hierarchy."
Note that X was explicitly granted an exception due to long historical
precedent (longer even than Java), but for X11R6 only. The /usr/X11R7
hierarchy would be disallowed, if it existed anywhere. And it's worth
noting that the exception isn't used any more in practice; Xorg has
migrated into the standard paths.
We could discuss a similar exception for Java, I suppose. But I wonder
if it would be necessary, assuming Java's inclusion into the LSB.
More information about the lsb-discuss
mailing list