Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:42:07 +0300 From: Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: javavmwrapper - JVM order question Message-ID: <201005281742.07172.achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> In-Reply-To: <F56E643D3EB3437C96AEFE03374AA799@nb1> References: <F56E643D3EB3437C96AEFE03374AA799@nb1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
i would say, just call directly your java executable. i agree at first glance the javavmwrapper - bsd.java.mk combination is a me= ss, yielding funny results. =CE=A3=CF=84=CE=B9=CF=82 Friday 28 May 2010 16:39:32 =CE=BF/=CE=B7 Milo=C5= =88 Pape=C5=BE=C3=ADk =CE=AD=CE=B3=CF=81=CE=B1=CF=88=CE=B5: > Hi, >=20 > I have problem/question regarding the order of JVMs determined by=20 > javavmwrapper > when no JAVA* environment variables are set. >=20 > When I do not have installed ports, the javavmwrapper determines the JVM= =20 > according to /usr/local/etc/javavms. > However when the ports are installed, the order is determined according t= o=20 > /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.java.mk. >=20 > The problem is that each scenario gives different result. >=20 > I would expect the javavmwrapper to be consistent - to use always=20 > /usr/local/etc/javavms > and use bsd.java.mk as fallback when /usr/local/etc/javavms is not=20 > available. >=20 > Should we change/fix javavmwrapper? > What do you think? >=20 > Thank you in advance, > Milon =2D-=20 Achilleas Mantzios
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201005281742.07172.achill>