-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Green wrote: >>Fedora Core 4 users are advised not to use the Java RPM provided by >>Sun. It contains Provides that conflict with names used in packages >>provided as part of Fedora Core 4. Because of this, Sun Java might >>disappear from an installed system during package upgrade operations. > > > I assume this is still true. Does anybody have a pointer to the > details? This shouldn't be the case if the java-1.4.2-sun-compat jpackage rpm works (this is supposed to be an jpackage-compatible add-on to the Sun rpm). Also, even if this is a problem, we should at least discuss if there are any workarounds. > I think we should discourage the /opt solution, since it doesn't > integrate with out alternatives-based solution. I agree. It also subverts the packaging system entirely. If a commercial rpm is desired, it is best to build the jpackage rpms. Is there any other way? > Also, I thought there were problems with using the binary RPM from > JPackage, and users _have_ to rebuild from the SRPM. Does anybody > know about this? I don't know, aren't these normally built on FC or something ``close enough''? So the questions remain: does the sun-compat rpm work and do the normal rpms work? (I wish I could answer but I've been out of the loop lately). > Is this really true? What about IBM or BEA? Should we even be > making specific recommendations here? Perhaps this is best > avoided. FC, being free, shouldn't be recommending non-free solutions (IMO). Yes, users will be interested in integration with commercial jvm's (not necessarily Sun either), but not only is this statement suggesting the use of non-free software, but it is somehow implying that it's supported by FC, when FC really only accepts bug reports for gcj. - -- Sincerely, David Walluck <david@xxxxxxxx> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDWtCParJDwJ6gwowRAjJSAJ9Ifw4e4PPo7GoqaqII73D3HuZBEACfV1nc ac1ViAKeYHAyI2g0bofuVgY= =TUd7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
