I think that if the necessary stuff cannot be found in a reasonable manner, it
should be necessary to specify it on the command line. You could even print a
message at the end of configure stating that due to the _very_ unpredictable
nature of the Java installations configure cannot find these peices that it
needs, you will need to specify them manually. I don't agree with having to
edit the Makefiles, or configure, to find stuff, but a configure option is
okay. I also don't consider having to use "find / ...." reasonable, as this
takes _way_ too much time on my 20G+ filesystem.


> Okay, that sounds reasonable and I can try and work on this to get it
> fixed. Here are the problems that I ran into with Pete's version of the
> search code and maybe you can give some suggestions to try to fix it.
> 
> Pete had configure write a little java program and then ran javac -verbose
> on it to locate which directory the jars were in. This worked okay with
> java 1.1.x because the jars were located near the root of the java
> directory and then he could search from there for the include files. But
> in java 1.2, the jars were down another level of directories, thus you
> would need to go up a directory and then traverse down. You can imagine
> the difficulty searching all of this and not knowing what version you're
> running. Even if you were to use find on the parent directory of the path
> returned, it could end up searching all of say /local. The other problem
> was it needs to find jni_md.h which is in a directory named differently on
> every os. Pete had done some work here to look for it in specific
> directories, but in the case for linux, the directory is named different
> on my LinuxPPC, my Alpha Linux, and Linux Intel. Also, Sun on Solaris
> had decided that java needed to be installed in all of its separate
> direcotries, ie javac in /usr/bin, jni.h in /usr/include, jars in
> /opt/java. So I used find to traverse the directory specified by the user
> to locate jni_md.h, thus avoiding this problem.
> 
> The next problem was that if someone else used a non-sun javac, the
> verbose flag does not always work. Thus not being able to even find the
> starting point.
> 
> So I guess my questions would be, what is standard? I've got three
> different systems with three different setups (not by choice). Editting
> Makefiles was beginning to be a big pain and that is why I made the
> change. Is the default assumed to be Sun Java 1.1.x running on one
> specific platform?
> 
> As for the netscape and cosmo jar files, Pete made it so that you had to
> edit the paths in the makefiles or put the jars in a location specified by
> him in the configure. What is your solution? The Netscape jar is a little
> easier due to the fact that many times it is installed in
> /usr/lib/netscape, but as for the cosmojar? Just assume it isn't there
> unless there is a command line option to configure stating where its at?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > I think it should by default try to build javadx, with a command line
> > option to turn it off.  The user should be able to specify the necessary
> > info by a command line option, but if not, it should try to divine it for
> > itself.  If it isn't given the info it needs and cannot figure it out, it
> > should not try to build it.   If there's a conventional location for the
> > installation on a system thats not found by the existing search code, the
> > search code should be modified to look there also.
> > 
> > That should solve everybody's problems.  If you don't want javadx or
> > don't have java, you can turn it off (though in the atter case, why
> > bother?  It won't find whats not there, and won't try to build it).  If
> > you have a standard system, it should work without intervention.  And if
> > you want something out of the ordinary - if you have an unconventional
> > installation or if you want to override the standard system java or if you
> > have a standard installation on a system that the built-in search doesn't
> > yet handle, you can deal with it.
> > 
> > Greg
> > 

Reply via email to