[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