|Re: [Firebird-Java] Building the libjaybird2.so on Linux
> Granted from a binary point of view compiling the java stuff does notYup, I'm using Gentoo since 2002 or 2003. :-)
> make much sense. However from an open source view it does, and from a
> this is how we do it on Gentoo, it makes sense. Gentoo is a source based
> ports distro.
> It's not easy and can cause all kinds of problems. The user can chooseThen how do you link the libjaybird2.so? It requires two .h files from JDK.
> jvm, and attempt to compile a given package. We do not bind to a
> particular jdk/jvm and let the user decided and deal with the problems.
Does one need to have $JAVA_HOME to be specified?
> Which is either reported to the project and they resolve. If it can't beWould you like to create small (or detailed, if you wish :)) page for Gentoo
> resolve, we make it depend on a particular jdk/jvm.
users that we can include in our wiki?
> Yeah there was comment that they did not like that aspect. I explainedWhat didn't they like?
> it had to be that way, and all is.
> Great. Finishining off the ebuilds now, and they should be in portageGreat!
> ~x86 within a few days, and hopefully in stable x86 within a week or the
> month at latest.
> Also if possible can the ant stuff build the jars less a version #?Hmmm... Actually I did this explicitly to allow configuration management in
> Makes it easier to link and not break links when installing a different
the system. We do have libfbclient.so.1.5 and then two symlinks for
libfbclient.so.1 an libfbclient.so. So why can't we use this approach here?
BTW, what is Gentoo's policy for jars? Where do they go? Is there some