-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Anthony Green wrote:
>Fedora Core 4 users are advised not to use the Java RPM provided
>Sun. It contains Provides that conflict with names used in packages
>provided as part of Fedora Core 4. Because of this, Sun Java might
>disappear from an installed system during package upgrade operations.
I assume this is still true. Does anybody have a pointer to the
This shouldn't be the case if the java-1.4.2-sun-compat jpackage rpm
works (this is supposed to be an jpackage-compatible add-on to the Sun rpm).
Also, even if this is a problem, we should at least discuss if there are
I think we should discourage the /opt solution, since it doesn't
integrate with out alternatives-based solution.
I agree. It also subverts the packaging system entirely. If a commercial
rpm is desired, it is best to build the jpackage rpms. Is there any
Also, I thought there were problems with using the binary RPM from
JPackage, and users _have_ to rebuild from the SRPM. Does anybody
know about this?
I don't know, aren't these normally built on FC or something ``close
enough''? So the questions remain: does the sun-compat rpm work and do
the normal rpms work? (I wish I could answer but I've been out of the
Is this really true? What about IBM or BEA? Should we even be
making specific recommendations here? Perhaps this is best
FC, being free, shouldn't be recommending non-free solutions (IMO). Yes,
users will be interested in integration with commercial jvm's (not
necessarily Sun either), but not only is this statement suggesting the
use of non-free software, but it is somehow implying that it's supported
by FC, when FC really only accepts bug reports for gcj.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----