On Sun, 21. Dec 09:57 tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> wrote: > On 12/15/2014 12:06 AM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Markus Koschany <a...@gambaru.de> wrote: > > [...] > >> Actually what was the reasoning behind the choice to use a custom shell > >> script like jarwrapper instead of jexec to register executable jars with > >> binfmt-misc? This question also came up in the bug report. > > > > Here is my guess: > > `jexec` only works with openjdk installed. At one point debian had > > multiple java implementation (sun, kaffe...). These days only two > > really remains, so maybe an easier solution would be to have a > > `gcj-exec` provided by `gcj-jdk` to mimic openjdk package. Which means > > it would be much easier to handle the LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue within the > > `gcj-exec` executable. > > > > jarwrapper is only really needed with a custom jre installation... > > That sounds reasonable to me, although it can be hard in practice to > keep things functional for users running non-Debian JRE packages. Which > is not to say that we shouldn't generally discourage jarwrapper...
I think before we create another solution like gcj-exec, it is easier to maintain the current implementation of jarwrapper. I agree that gcj's handling of LD_LIBRARY_PATH and Multiarch could be improved but in my opinion there are other aspects about gcj which deserve even more attention. Most modern Java applications just don't work with it. I suggest to upload the fix for #764630 now. I just saw tony's email from the 21th. The current state on master is final. I haven't planned any further changes to jarwrapper. Please go ahead. Regards, Markus
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
