Nicolas Mailhot writes: > Le mardi 13 mars 2007 à 14:01 -0400, Matthew Miller a écrit : > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 01:54:56PM -0400, Rob Crittenden wrote: > > > But any random JVM that a user downloads from Sun or IBM directly > > > wouldn't know about this extra endorsement, right? So any > > > non-rpm-installed JVMs would still not work? > > > > They would work fine for whatever they were installed for. They just > > wouldn't work for this. Presuming that "this" can be made to work just fine > > with gcj and/or future-free-java, then it should just stay that way. Am I > > not getting something? > > > > I mean, do we consider "the kernel doesn't build with Microsoft C" a > > problem? > > The kernel is mature and the main implementation. If > fedora-packaged java apps fail when people try to use them with > proprietary jvms that's a bigger problem. Till gcj is mature, > efficient and recognized in the marketplace being able to mix and > replace components (including the jvm) is a huge plus. > > (now on this particular point, I don't see how we can accommodate > SUN & Fedora requirements, and Fedora goals come first) It's just a dependency, no different from any other package dependency. A proprietary Java runtime environment that needs signed crypto JARs has a dependency on such JARs. When such a proprietary JRE is installed, the signed crypto JARs it needs should be installed with it. Andrew. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
