On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:56:05 -0400 Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This was for gcjwebplugin-on-libgcj. The "icedtea-plugin rocks!" > thread is referring to gcjwebplugin-on-IcedTea which is > (audit-pending) much more secure. To make gcjwebplugin-on-IcedTea > installed and enabled by default as the original poster is proposing, > we'd need to have IcedTea available in comps.xml. It's too soon to > replace GCJ with IcedTea, because of the architecture coverage > issues, but does anyone see a problem with including IcedTea > alongside GCJ in the default comps.xml? That would mean that IcedTea > and GCJ would be installed by default, and IcedTea would take > precedence on architectures where it was available, and GCJ would be > the fallback, selectable using alternatives. Then the IcedTea plugin > would be installed by default on architectures where it is > available. I like this approach because there is demand for IcedTea > to be included by default. I thought this is what was going to be done anyway, that's the Feature configuration I voted for. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
