Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
On 16/10/2007, Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Also, the highest version of Fedora that JPackage seems to officially
support is FC6 (see http://www.jpackage.org/yum.php). So I'm not sure
it's helpful even to point people at JPackage for Fedora 8, because
I'm not sure there's much useful they can do with it.
p.s. -- See also this bug report -- at least one other person is also
having problems with jpackage/Fedora integration.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=260161
It's too late to resolve this for Fedora 8, but I can provide post-Fedora 8
updates. The potential resolutions are:
1) get JPackage to accept rebuild-security-providers upstream
2) implement security.d searching in the JREs
3) inline rebuild-security-providers in post scripts
I proposed rebuild-security-providers for upstream inclusion but received no
response:
https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2006-February/009592.html
Longer term, my plan is to support security.d in IcedTea/OpenJDK. External
security providers would drop config files in /etc/java/security/security.d and
JREs that support security.d would automatically load them, in addition to the
providers listed in java.security.
In the short term -- that is, soon after Fedora 8 is released -- I'll inline
rebuild-security-providers in relevant post scripts, and release a new
jpackage-utils that doesn't contain the script.
While solution 3) will silence rpm's complaints, it won't solve the fact that
vanilla jpackage-utils doesn't own /etc/java/security/security.d/. So JPackage
users will have to pay attention that applications that run on GCJ and employ
external security providers are not adversely affected.
Tom
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
