On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:24 -0600, Steve Strong wrote: > Les wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 10:58 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 07:01 -0700, Karl Larsen wrote: > > > > > > > Knute Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Knute Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To install and run Sun Java on F8 look at the simplified instructions > > > > > > > on this site; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com/sun-java-on-F8.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't need to remove anything before installing Sun Java. JEdit > > > > > > > should work with icedtea anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the things the page says are wrong. But it will be easy now > > > > > > with sim links to use the right java and jedit will work. By the way, I > > > > > > tried it with icedtea and it did not work at ALL! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is wrong with the document? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Funny you should ask :-) > > > > > > > > The document is good but it appears the two lib files are already on F8 > > > > and it leaves out the most important part. You need to use the new java > > > > when you call java from a terminal. I got done with the document but > > > > when I would type java -version I got the wimpy version Fedora sends. > > > > > > > > So I looked at /usr/bin/java and it is linked to > > > > /etc/alternatives/java. So I mv java old.java. Then link to the new java > > > > with this: > > > > > > > > [root@k5di bin]# ln -s /usr/java/default/bin/java /etc/alternatives/java > > > > > > > > The default/bin/java will be the latest one in the /usr/java/ directory. > > > > > > > > With this addition my jedit was installed fast and it works right. I > > > > needs to be added to the document. > > > > > > > No, what needs to be added to the document is instructions on how to use > > > the alternatives facility to get these links set up properly. > > > > > > I can understand how Karl or anyone else might be led to fix these > > > things up by hand, as above, but it's better to use the tool designed > > > for the job. But in order to do so, one needs to know what that tool > > > is. It's not as common knowledge as it ought to be. > > > > > > man alternatives > > > > > > > > > > Karl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matthew Saltzman > > > > > Hi, Matthew, > > I have read the man page. However, I am not sure this is simpler??? > > It seems to be a tool to maintain dependency tracking for symbolic > > links. The man page also repeatedly makes reference to Debian, which is > > an alternative Linux Distribution. Given that a newbie, with some > > rudimentary knowledge (like myself or Karl) can manage symbolic links, > > and that we may or may not take on faith that a Debian tool will work > > with Fedora, how does this improve the situation? I know that I can > > google this, but a link could be mentioned in the man page to assist > > with this. In other words the tool is not yet ready for many if not > > most of us until either we improve our collective knowledge, or the > > tools documentation improves to help us find our way through a minefield > > of system affecting links and link modifiers. Personally, I think such > > a tool doing a relatively complex task needs really good documentation > > about how to read its control script, and what each command does, and a > > good example showing the effects of those commands on software updates, > > software interactions (what if a shell is calling Jave.1.4 and you > > update to Java.1.5 for example). And where the links are stored and how > > to back rev it when software has to be removed to restore system > > functionality. > > > > I know the current thrust is to automate all system administration > > tasks, but when it doesn't work, who can fix it if the "trail" is > > obscured, and the author(s) of the automatic tools is no longer > > available? > > > > Regards, > > Les H > > > > > > > i just got into reading this thread and thought i'd throw in my > experience (why not???) > > we had a lot of problems with the default java install on FC7 and 8. > i have my kickstart file NOT install the default java package and > instead install the latest rpm from Sun. then, i added lines to my > post-install that uses the alternatives command to make the Sun > install the current best version. > > i haven't seen any bugs with the Sun install (although i read with > interest some reports of bugs in this thread) and i'm happy with the > solution. > > in general, i think it's a good idea to NOT rewrite a solution to a > problem in someone else's code base, so i'm suspicious of fedora doing > it's own java and like the idea of incorporating the Sun rpm's in the > distribution. ---- which is fine until you try installing something like eclipse packages when all of the gcj stuff will be installed as dependencies. Craig
