Re: JAVA_HOME... why?

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

On 11 December 2012 17:25, Rik <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 01:35 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>>
>> Can someone please explain to me again why we need JAVA_HOME? Why is
>> jni.h special and can't be installed and used like any other system
>> header? I can understand setting it if your Java installation is in a
>> non-default location, but it's really strange that the current trend
>> is to be telling anyone who builds Octave that they have to make sure
>> JAVA_HOME is set correctly; moreso for configure to be complaining
>> about it when it's not. The configure script doesn't complain if I
>> don't have QT_HOME or FFTW_HOME set correctly; why is Java special? I
>> am able to build Octave with Java support without JAVA_HOME. Why can't
>> anyone else?
>>
>> I'm not saying this is a stupid thing; I just want to understand the problem.
>
> I think it really is this bad.  Without guidance, by setting JAVA_HOME, the
> Java JDK might be anywhere on the file system.  Part of the trouble seems
> to be that there wasn't a standard for where to put the JDK, as opposed to
> the java binary which had to go somewhere on the PATH.  In addition,
> whatever standardization there was from the fact that Linux and Solaris
> were Unix-like systems has been rendered moot by Apple ("Think Different!")
> and their choice of file locations.
>
> The reason configuration worked automatically on Debian was that there were
> hardcoded paths especially for that distribution.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

- Jordi G. H.