John M. Gabriele writes: > --- David Walluck <david@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ian Pilcher <i.pilcher@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > It would be a very good thing, IMNSHO, if the Fedora Java folks and the > > > JPackage folks could develop some sort of co-existance strategy. > > > > I don't think that there are any major issues with co-existence. The > > idea, as I > > gather from the list, was always to have FC4 be ``fully'' jpp-compatible. > > > > The major issue I see is that the .so files and other binaries aren't shipped > > separately. [snip] > > Could you please explain what shared libs have to do with Java packages here? > > What do you mean by .so files being shipped separately? Don't Java packages > just come with either: > > 1. jar files that consist of bundled-up .class files, or > 2. binaries built with GCJ that link with the libgcj already on your system? > > Since JPP packages are JVM-agnostic, then wouldn't that rule out #2 > above for JPP packages? For Fedora it's not either/or: it's both. Andrew.
