From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 28 14:42:11 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C161065676 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 14:42:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com) Received: from smadev.internal.net (host3.dynacom.ondsl.gr [62.103.35.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FF08FC1A for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 14:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smadev.internal.net (localhost.internal.net [127.0.0.1]) by smadev.internal.net (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o4SEg7Rl064487 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:42:07 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by smadev.internal.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id o4SEg7H7064486 for freebsd-java@freebsd.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 17:42:07 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com) From: Achilleas Mantzios Organization: Dynacom Tankers Mgmt To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 17:42:07 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201005281742.07172.achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> Subject: Re: javavmwrapper - JVM order question X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:42:11 -0000 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