Re: Java problem with Fedora

[Martin Helm]

Am 30.08.2012 08:28, schrieb Terry Duell:
> Hello All,
> Back in Jan I encountered a problem with Octave 3.4.3 and Fedora 16
> x86_64, where I received the message from Octave...
>
> error: java_invoke:
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64/jre/lib/amd64/client/libjvm.so:
>
> failed to load:
> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0.x86_64/jre/lib/amd64/client/libjvm.so:
>
> cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
>
> Subsequent checking of my system revealed that there was no
> .../jre/lib/amd64/client dir, but there was a server dir containing
> libjvm.so.
> Responses to my request for help suggested that I could create the
> client dir and provide a simlink to libjvm.so, and that this had
> probably occurred because of a packaging problem.
> I am beginning to think that it may not be a packaging problem and
> that it may be Fedora policy to package openjdk with only a server dir
> containing libjvm.so, as the same issue has now cropped up with Fedora
> 17 and subsequent openjdk updates, i.e. I have had to create the
> symlink a number of times since my original message.
>
> Is it possible for the relevant Octave code to look for libjvm.so in
> the server dir as well as the client dir, or to find the library some
> other way without causing other issues?
> It does seem that things are not as they should/could be if the user
> has to apply a fix to system files to overcome this error.
> It is a bit curious is that I seem to be the only one who has raised
> this question on this list. Surely I'm not the only one running Octave
> on Fedora... and encountered this error.
>
> Cheers,

You are not alone with Fedora, the exactly same problem happens on all
openSUSE versions as well, I always have to create the appropriate
symlinks manually. I am not sure what the correct solution is (changing
the package policy for openjdk, creating the symbolic link when the
octave forge java package is installed, changing the source code of the
of java package).

Anyway I think this discussion should go to octave forge where the java
package is maintained not to the octave helper list, I put the
corresponding dev list on CC and would think that from the next reply on
address@hidden should be removed from CC.