> From: Michael A. Peters > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 10:10 PM > To: fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: FC4 slimfast slimfest > > > On 02/21/2005 06:11:00 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > > > > I think you are overestimating the importance of Java to the average > > user. > > I also would prefer JPackage handle Java. > Here's why - JPackage is very good at making things available on many > distributions. I've already sent e-mails to several developers of Java > apps suggesting they package their product in an rpm with the > dependencies satisfied by what is in JPackage, so that Linux users can > simply add the JPackage repository, and then yum localinstall the rpm - > and whatever is needed will just be grabbed. Some developers e-mailed > me saying they had not heard of JPackage but they liked what they saw. > In many cases this work for several distributions with just a single > rpm from the vendor, but if Fedora deviates from JPackage, then install > instructions for Fedora would have to be different than instructions > for other distro's. > > I'm not a Java developer, I honestly don't like GUI Java apps in most > cases (it's the interface - not pretty) though I do like a few because > they are very good at what they do. > > As far as packaging Java, JPackage is very good at what it does - I > have never before had such an easy time getting Java applications to > just work. > > I would rather see support (and I do see it) of RH and Fedora for the > JPackage project, and let JPackage handle everything Java. Maybe ship a > JVM but not until it can do applets. > > Ship with a jpackage.org repo file installed that a user just needs to > enable to use. > > -- > Michael A. Peters > http://mpeters.us/ +1. The added bonus for this option is that the maintenance of the packages themselves is left to the community rather than to an already overworked Redhat staff which is maintaining 2 distros (FC and RHEL). Alex Ackerman
