On 02/27/2015 12:57 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Shouldn't this one replace 3). As if there are no alternatives,
priorities are meaningless.
Sound good.
J.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jiri Vanek" <jvanek(a)redhat.com>
> To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:42:53 PM
> Subject: Re: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in
Fedora
>
> On 02/27/2015 12:04 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 02/27/2015 10:47 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>>
>>> If we want to be sure that this legacy jdk will not interfere with
>>> the system JDK let it not provide anything via alternatives. That
>>> way people that want it can use it by playing with PATH/JAVA_HOME
>>> (just like they do with other JVMs).
>>
>> That's right.
>>
>
> In that case, to add another rule - " 8) all alternatives bindings must be
> removed" - must be added.
>
> J.
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct