search

imagej / imagej-launcher

The ImageJ native launcher
https://imagej.net/learn/launcher
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
21 stars 23 forks source link

Re-consider Linux subdirs for JRE #79

Closed hinerm closed 3 years ago

hinerm commented 3 years ago

We changed the platform-specific java/ subdirs to be linux32, linux64, win32, win64 and macosx, as determined here and removed the convention of search other platforms' directories for Java.

However, fiji-builds renames linux64 to linux-amd64, and linux32 javas appear to have historically been bundled in a folder just called linux.

So in the wild, Linux users updating to the new launchers will no longer detect their bundled Java. Also a problem is that fiji-builds is still producing linux-amd64 bundles.

Options:

  1. Change the launcher to use linux-amd64 and linux for 64-bit and 32-bit java bundle directories
  2. Change fiji-builds to produce bundles in linux64 and linux32 and ask users to rename directories
hinerm commented 3 years ago

@ctrueden thoughts?

ctrueden commented 3 years ago

The old names were linux and linux-amd64, yeah.

How difficult would it be to change the launcher to first search linux32/linux64, and if not found there, then search linux/linux-amd64 for backwards compatibility? Then we can choose option (2), but without requiring users to rename folders in existing installations.

imagesc-bot commented 3 years ago

This issue has been mentioned on Image.sc Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.image.sc/t/updated-imagej-launcher-java-bundles/44841/26

hinerm commented 3 years ago

How difficult would it be to change the launcher to first search linux32/linux64, and if not found there, then search linux/linux-amd64 for backwards compatibility?

I am worried that this would be getting into the complexities we wanted to avoid with the new launcher: building case logic for various scenarios. The point was to have one fixed expected directory per platform, so it seems reasonable to just use the directories established by previous bundles, no?

I'm not clear on what we would gain from having directories named linux32 and linux64 aside from consistency across platforms. But users are likely only going to see the directory for their platform so... I guess I'm leaning towards (1)

ctrueden commented 3 years ago

I'm not clear on what we would gain from having directories named linux32 and linux64 aside from consistency across platforms.

That is a good point, yes, all we would gain is consistency. It's not important enough here. Let's go with option (1). Thanks.

hinerm commented 3 years ago

Closed by https://github.com/imagej/imagej-launcher/commit/e201adff4360166e8f6b05eed7137dbd08555c2e