On 06/04/2011 01:42 AM, Alan Bartlett wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 23:34, Manuel Wolfshant<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 06/03/2011 10:56 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>>> Alan Bartlett wrote on 06/03/2011 03:32 PM:
>>>> One comment. I thought linkage of the libjavaplugin_jni.so file is redundant?
>>> May be superstitious behavior on my part. I saw it recommended
>>> somewhere to use both and have followed that, but it seems to work fine
>>> without the libjavaplugin_jni.so link, but the link does not seem to
>>> cause problems. That can be deleted if not needed.
>> I am 100% sure that on x86_64 libnpjp2.so is enough (that's what I use).
>> On the other arch however, if I am not mistaken (I have no i386 system
>> handy for testing until Monday) I am accustomed to using
>> libjavaplugin_jni .
> Just for you, Wolfy, freshly harvested from a working 32-bit system --
> [ajb@GX1 plugins]$ pwd
> [ajb@GX1 plugins]$ ls -1
> [ajb@GX1 plugins]$
great, thanks. I've updated the wiki page and left only libnpjp2.
CentOS-docs mailing list