5:05 p.m.
I've been really bad about preparing the FC5 release notes for java. I
wrote the followup up today, which I think covers the number 1 issue.
Comments?
AG
Fedora Core does not include "Java(tm)", but it does include a tools
suite and execution environment based on Free Software technologies
that is capable of building and running many useful programs written
in the Java programming language, including the Eclipse IDE, Tomcat,
and OpenOffice.org.
In addition to the Free Software stack, Fedora Core is designed to let
you install multiple Java implementations and switch between them
using the "alternatives" command line tool. However, every Java
system you install must be packaged using the JPackage Project's
packaging guidelines.
No proprietary Java vendor currently ships their products in JPackage
compatible RPMs. Do not install RPMs from vendors such as Sun
Microsystems, IBM or BEA without first repackaging them using the
appropriate JPackage wrapper or compatibility package. Failure to do
so will lead to unpredictable results.
Once installed properly, however, the root user should be able to
switch between "java" and "javac" implementations using the
"alternatives" command ("alternatives --config java" and
"alternatives
--config javac").
Instructions on repackaging proprietary Java implementations may be
found here: http://www.fedorafaq.org/fc3/custom_java.html
AG
5:32 p.m.
BTW: slightly off-topic -- I'm wondering why the objections to Mono
being included in the core suddenly went away. I'm on the fedora-devel
list also, but saw no significant discussion on this prior to the
story on slashdot some time ago.
Does this represent some change in policy by Redhat/Fedora? And if so
could this facilitate the inclusion of the Sun VM in the core?
Joe.
On 1/30/06, Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Fedora Core does not include "Java(tm)", but it does
include a tools
suite and execution environment based on Free Software technologies
that is capable of building and running many useful programs written
in the Java programming language, including the Eclipse IDE, Tomcat,
and OpenOffice.org.
5:49 p.m.
Well, Sun _knows_ why the Sun JRE/DK doesn't get included in most distros:
because the Sun redistribution license explicity requires the distributor to
accept liability for damage, etc caused by the runtime. This is pretty much
incompatible with the "no warranty whatsoever" set. They are working to
change the license with Mustang to make it more compatible with Linux
distros.
I will refrain from commenting on the Mono situation. :P
On 1/30/06, Joe Desbonnet <jdesbonnet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
BTW: slightly off-topic -- I'm wondering why the objections to Mono
being included in the core suddenly went away. I'm on the fedora-devel
list also, but saw no significant discussion on this prior to the
story on slashdot some time ago.
Does this represent some change in policy by Redhat/Fedora? And if so
could this facilitate the inclusion of the Sun VM in the core?
Joe.
On 1/30/06, Anthony Green <green(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Fedora Core does not include "Java(tm)", but it does include a tools
> suite and execution environment based on Free Software technologies
> that is capable of building and running many useful programs written
> in the Java programming language, including the Eclipse IDE, Tomcat,
> and OpenOffice.org.
--
fedora-devel-java-list mailing list
fedora-devel-java-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-java-list
--
:Robert "kebernet" Cooper
::kebernet@gmail.com
"To me programming is more than an important practical art. It is also a
gigantic undertaking in the foundations of knowledge."
--Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9E8759F8
6:32 p.m.
>>>> "Joe" == Joe Desbonnet
<jdesbonnet(a)gmail.com> writes:
Joe> BTW: slightly off-topic -- I'm wondering why the objections to Mono
Joe> being included in the core suddenly went away. I'm on the fedora-devel
Joe> list also, but saw no significant discussion on this prior to the
Joe> story on slashdot some time ago.
All I know is what was on the list. My understanding is that, even if
I did know, I couldn't say anyway. Sorry.
Joe> And if so
Joe> could this facilitate the inclusion of the Sun VM in the core?
Unfortunately, the Sun VM is not open source. So, no.
Tom
7:23 p.m.
>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Green
<green(a)redhat.com> writes:
Anthony> I've been really bad about preparing the FC5 release notes
Anthony> for java. I wrote the followup up today, which I think
Anthony> covers the number 1 issue. Comments?
Just a nit ...
Anthony> Fedora Core does not include "Java(tm)", but it does include a
tools
Anthony> suite
I think it reads a bit more naturally to say 'tool suite' and not
'tools suite'. What do you think?
Nice phraseology BTW.
Tom
1:30 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 15:05 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
Fedora Core does not include "Java(tm)", but it does
include a tools
suite and execution environment based on Free Software technologies
that is capable of building and running many useful programs written
in the Java programming language, including the Eclipse IDE, Tomcat,
and OpenOffice.org.
Why the term "execution environment" rather than the "runtime
environment" most Java users are familiar with from JRE?
If changed, would "capable of building and executing" then sound better?
In addition to the Free Software stack, Fedora Core is designed to
let
you install multiple Java implementations and switch between them
using the "alternatives" command line tool.
I think the phrase "using the "alternatives" command line tool" is
redundant at this point, given the later explanation of how to switch.
However, every Java system you install must be packaged using
the JPackage Project's packaging guidelines.
No proprietary Java vendor currently ships their products in
JPackage
compatible RPMs. Do not install RPMs from vendors such as Sun
Microsystems, IBM or BEA without first repackaging them using the
appropriate JPackage wrapper or compatibility package. Failure to do
so will lead to unpredictable results.
The word "must" in the first part bothers me, as I don't think it's
strictly true.
How about something like:
The Java tools and software provided by Fedora Core follow the JPackage
Project's packaging guidelines. Installing RPM or binary packages
directly from vendors such as Sun Microsystems, IBM, or BEA, without
first repackaging them using the appropriate JPackage wrapper or
compatibility package, can lead to serious installation conflicts
between implementations with unpredictable results.
Once installed properly, however, the root user should be able to
switch between "java" and "javac" implementations using the
"alternatives" command ("alternatives --config java" and
"alternatives
--config javac").
Instructions on repackaging proprietary Java implementations may be
found here: http://www.fedorafaq.org/fc3/custom_java.html
I would say "If installed properly" ... rather than subconsciously push
them to other implementations :)
Anyhow, despite my nits above, my real question is if there will also be
something to the effect of:
"Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation
guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped
with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage,
in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime
environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include
pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the
original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum
configuration and update to packages shipped directly through the
JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an unpredictable mix of
bytecode and binary software. Users wishing to maintain a supported
environment, by using the Free Java tools shipped with Fedora, are thus
advised to only update their systems with Java packages provided through
the Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through
JPackage unless they plan to switch to a proprietary Java runtime. The
Fedora provided application software packages should continue to work
with other Java Runtime Environments which follow JPackage guidelines,
but as stated above, there is a good chance unmodified JPackage
applications will not work with the default Runtime Environment shipped
with Fedora."
I fell victim to the above, as once I saw that FC4 was built on top of
JPackage, the first thing I did was to rush out and update to the latest
and greatest from their Yum repo. The JPackage site, being geared
toward proprietary JVM's, conveniently provided me with Yum instructions
for my FC4 distro, with no mention of the possible hazards to my shiny
new Free Java setup.
--
Chris Hubick
mailto:chris@hubick.com
http://www.hubick.com/
9 a.m.
Chris Hubick wrote:
"Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation
guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped
with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage,
in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime
environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include
pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the
original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum
configuration and update to packages shipped directly through the
JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an unpredictable mix of
bytecode and binary software. Users wishing to maintain a supported
environment, by using the Free Java tools shipped with Fedora, are thus
advised to only update their systems with Java packages provided through
the Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through
JPackage unless they plan to switch to a proprietary Java runtime. The
Fedora provided application software packages should continue to work
with other Java Runtime Environments which follow JPackage guidelines,
but as stated above, there is a good chance unmodified JPackage
applications will not work with the default Runtime Environment shipped
with Fedora."
Amen!
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net
========================================================================
2:04 p.m.
On 1/31/06, Ian Pilcher <i.pilcher(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Chris Hubick wrote:
> "Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation
> guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped
> with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage,
> in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime
> environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include
> pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the
> original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum
> configuration and update to packages shipped directly through the
> JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an unpredictable mix of
> bytecode and binary software. Users wishing to maintain a supported
> environment, by using the Free Java tools shipped with Fedora, are thus
> advised to only update their systems with Java packages provided through
> the Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through
> JPackage unless they plan to switch to a proprietary Java runtime. The
> Fedora provided application software packages should continue to work
> with other Java Runtime Environments which follow JPackage guidelines,
> but as stated above, there is a good chance unmodified JPackage
> applications will not work with the default Runtime Environment shipped
> with Fedora."
Amen!
Has anyone noticed the implicit contradiction between "you should use
the JDK from the JPackage repo" and "you should not use the JPackage
repo"?
--
Weiqi Gao (高为奇)
weiqigao(a)gmail.com
http://www.weiqigao.com/blog/
2:41 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:04 -0600, Weiqi Gao wrote:
Has anyone noticed the implicit contradiction between "you
should use
the JDK from the JPackage repo" and "you should not use the JPackage
repo"?
I tried to consistently use the specific terms "application software"
versus "runtime environment" to minimize this confusion. An additional
explicit note might be a good idea:
"Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation
guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped
with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage,
in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime
environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include
pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the
original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum
configuration and update to application software packages shipped
directly through the JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an
unpredictable mix of bytecode and binary software. So although Fedora
recommends the use of JPackage for installing alternate Java Runtime
Environments, JPackage is not necessarily recommended for the Java
application software packages which use that runtime. Users wishing to
maintain a supported software platform, by using the Free Java Runtime
Environment shipped with Fedora, are advised to only update their
systems with Java application software packages provided through the
Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through
JPackage unless they also plan to switch to one of their
alternate/proprietary Java runtimes. The Fedora provided application
software packages should continue to work with other Java Runtime
Environments which follow JPackage guidelines, but as stated above,
there is a good chance unmodified JPackage applications will not work
with the default Runtime Environment shipped with Fedora."
--
Chris Hubick
mailto:chris@hubick.com
http://www.hubick.com/
2:53 a.m.
Chris Hubick wrote:
So although Fedora recommends the use of JPackage for installing
alternate Java Runtime Environments...
It's designed to _allow_ the use of alternative JREs from JPackage
but I wouldn't say it _recommends_ it. As far as I'm concerned
Fedora recommends using the Free Software runtime and development
environment and working with us to fix any bugs or deficiencies you
find.
...there is a good chance unmodified JPackage applications will
not work with the default Runtime Environment shipped with Fedora.
There is also a good chance that unmodified JPackage applications
will work just fine. GCJ 4.1's lazy loading and the fast improving
Swing implementation mean that it is rapidly becoming the case that
the only applications that will not work are those that use
undocumented and unsupported calls to Sun-specific classes.
Cheers,
Gary
12:39 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 14:04 -0600, Weiqi Gao wrote:
Has anyone noticed the implicit contradiction between "you
should use
the JDK from the JPackage repo" and "you should not use the JPackage
repo"?
The relationship between JPackage and Fedora Core is complicated. I
wish it were simpler.
What we really have in FC is a fork of JPackage where we've removed all
dependencies on non-free software, so we're only partly compatible with
the JPackage repository.
From what I can tell the JPackage project is moving in that same
direction as well. They appear to be dropping "non-free" dependencies
from their "free" packages. Can anybody confirm that this is their
actual plan?
AG
3:22 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 15:05 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
I've been really bad about preparing the FC5 release notes for
java. I
wrote the followup up today, which I think covers the number 1 issue.
Comments?
We moved some of the content around to come up with this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotes/Java
I'm doing clean-up for the test3 snapshot, so your changes are JIT.
Now, if you could give me some good news about packaging FOP for
Extras ...
Chris Hubick -- got your comments. The content has changed since your
original reply. Can you look back at the page and see which of your
concerns still exist? Feel free to edit the Wiki directly. If you
think you need your changes vetted, make sure that sundaram(a)redhat.com
remains on the Cc: (though he is probably on this list already.)
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Content Services Fedora Documentation Project
http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
4:05 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 13:22 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 15:05 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> I've been really bad about preparing the FC5 release notes for java. I
> wrote the followup up today, which I think covers the number 1 issue.
> Comments?
We moved some of the content around to come up with this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotes/Java
Chris Hubick -- got your comments. The content has changed since
your
original reply. Can you look back at the page and see which of your
concerns still exist?
The last note says:
Jpackage is a Java software repository compatible with Fedora.
I think this language could lead to exactly the problem I had with FC4,
where users will read this and run out an do a yum update from the JPP
repository, not knowing it will mess up their FC Java.
Avoid installing third-party packages that are not compatible with
the JPackage repository.
Do not install RPM packages from vendors such as Sun Microsystems,
IBM, or BEA without first repackaging them using the appropriate
JPackage wrapper or compatibility package. Failure to do so leads
to unpredictable results.
I also think this language is a little strong/absolute sounding. I
personally would offer more of a "doing so *can* lead to problems with
the shipped solutions" stance (if you don't know what you are doing).
That is to say, if you do go ahead and take a stock FC5 box and install
Sun's RPM and non-jpackage Java software, as long as your path's are
right, it *will* probably work.
The other thing I notice is the complete lack of another note clause
resembling the proposed:
"Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation
guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped
with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage,
in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime
environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include
pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the
original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum
configuration and update to application software packages shipped
directly through the JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an
unpredictable mix of bytecode and binary software. So although Fedora
allows the use of JPackage for installing alternate Java Runtime
Environments, JPackage is not necessarily recommended for the Java
application software packages which use that runtime. Users wishing to
maintain a supported software platform, by using the Free Java Runtime
Environment shipped with Fedora, are advised to only update their
systems with Java application software packages provided through the
Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through
JPackage unless they also plan to switch to one of their
alternate/proprietary Java runtimes. The Fedora provided application
software packages should continue to work with other Java Runtime
Environments which follow JPackage guidelines, but as stated above,
there is a good chance unmodified JPackage applications will not work
with the default Runtime Environment shipped with Fedora."
Do people not think this is a good idea then? Too verbose?
I hesitate to edit the wiki myself, as historically I have been just a
lowly Fedora user, I don't know what you dev's want, and don't want to
step on anyones toes, and lastly as a programmer, my spelling,
punctuation, capitalization, and grammar skills need some... ehh...
refinement (as if you couldn't tell already :).
--
Chris Hubick
mailto:chris@hubick.com
http://www.hubick.com/
4:36 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 15:05 -0700, Chris Hubick wrote:
The last note says:
> Jpackage is a Java software repository compatible with Fedora.
I think this language could lead to exactly the problem I had with FC4,
where users will read this and run out an do a yum update from the JPP
repository, not knowing it will mess up their FC Java.
Totally agreed. JPackage is only partially compatible with FC.
> Avoid installing third-party packages that are not compatible
with
> the JPackage repository.
> Do not install RPM packages from vendors such as Sun Microsystems,
> IBM, or BEA without first repackaging them using the appropriate
> JPackage wrapper or compatibility package. Failure to do so leads
> to unpredictable results.
I also think this language is a little strong/absolute sounding. I
personally would offer more of a "doing so *can* lead to problems with
the shipped solutions" stance (if you don't know what you are doing).
That is to say, if you do go ahead and take a stock FC5 box and install
Sun's RPM and non-jpackage Java software, as long as your path's are
right, it *will* probably work.
I like the strong wording. My understanding is that the Sun RPM won't
work for certain things if you have SELinux enabled because they don't
set the file attributes during install. This is something we can fix in
the JPackage wrapper. I also think it's in everybody's best interest if
Sun, IBM, BEA _did_ package their systems using the JPackage guidelines,
so spreading the meme that it is a requirement is a good idea. In a
sense, it also "breaks" alternatives, since users may put /opt/whatever
in their path. Why encourage something that is just bad practice?
The other thing I notice is the complete lack of another note clause
resembling the proposed:
"Please note that despite utilizing the JPackage installation
guidelines, several of the Java application software packages shipped
with Fedora have been slightly modified from those provided by JPackage,
in order to work out of the box with the included compiler and runtime
environment. Additionally, the Fedora packages also include
pre-compiled fast and optimized native binary code alongside the
original Java bytecode JAR files. As a result, if you modify your Yum
configuration and update to application software packages shipped
directly through the JPackage Yum repository, you will end up with an
unpredictable mix of bytecode and binary software. So although Fedora
allows the use of JPackage for installing alternate Java Runtime
Environments, JPackage is not necessarily recommended for the Java
application software packages which use that runtime. Users wishing to
maintain a supported software platform, by using the Free Java Runtime
Environment shipped with Fedora, are advised to only update their
systems with Java application software packages provided through the
Fedora and Fedora Extras Yum repositories, and not directly through
JPackage unless they also plan to switch to one of their
alternate/proprietary Java runtimes. The Fedora provided application
software packages should continue to work with other Java Runtime
Environments which follow JPackage guidelines, but as stated above,
there is a good chance unmodified JPackage applications will not work
with the default Runtime Environment shipped with Fedora."
Do people not think this is a good idea then? Too verbose?
I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. Personally, I wish there
was a way to say something similar in fewer words... How about...
* A note about the JPackage Project RPM repository. Fedora Core
includes many packages derived from the excellent JPackage Project.
These packages have been forked to remove non-free software dependencies
and to make use of GCJ's ahead-of-time compilation feature. Fedora
users should use the Fedora repositories for updates to these packages,
and the JPackage repository for packages not provided by Fedora.
????
AG
5:13 p.m.
Anthony Green wrote:
* A note about the JPackage Project RPM repository. Fedora Core
includes many packages derived from the excellent JPackage Project.
These packages have been forked to remove non-free software dependencies
and to make use of GCJ's ahead-of-time compilation feature. Fedora
users should use the Fedora repositories for updates to these packages,
and the JPackage repository for packages not provided by Fedora.
At the very least, it need to clearly state that blindly adding the
JPackage repo to one's yum configuration can have "bad consequences".
--
========================================================================
Ian Pilcher i.pilcher(a)comcast.net
========================================================================
1:16 a.m.
On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 17:13 -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote:
Anthony Green wrote:
> * A note about the JPackage Project RPM repository. Fedora Core
> includes many packages derived from the excellent JPackage Project.
> These packages have been forked to remove non-free software dependencies
> and to make use of GCJ's ahead-of-time compilation feature. Fedora
> users should use the Fedora repositories for updates to these packages,
> and the JPackage repository for packages not provided by Fedora.
At the very least, it need to clearly state that blindly adding the
JPackage repo to one's yum configuration can have "bad consequences".
Does this set the right tone?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotes/Java
Please adjust as you see fit.
Technically this content is frozen for translation, but if we can get in
a good version early enough tomorrow, I know I can squeeze it into the
files being translated.
Thanks - Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Content Services Fedora Documentation Project
http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
1:30 p.m.
>>>> "Karsten" == Karsten Wade
<kwade(a)redhat.com> writes:
Karsten> Does this set the right tone?
Karsten> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotes/Java
I think this is the correct URL:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotesJava
This content looked reasonable to me.
BTW there is a typo in the JavaFAQ wiki page -- it says "wierd" and
not "weird".
Tom
3:42 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 12:30 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>> "Karsten" == Karsten Wade
<kwade(a)redhat.com> writes:
Karsten> Does this set the right tone?
Karsten> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotes/Java
I think this is the correct URL:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/PackageNotesJava
Thanks, I had to rename it last night.
BTW there is a typo in the JavaFAQ wiki page -- it says
"wierd" and
not "weird".
Fixed.
Let me know what your Wiki username is, and I'll add you to the
EditGroup for the future.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Content Services Fedora Documentation Project
http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
2:34 p.m.
Karsten - is too late to make changes to the wiki?
I want to add a note about how people should include the results of
"which java && java -version && which javac && javac
-version"
in all their java related bug reports. It's important to know what
alternative somebody is using before we start looking into problems with
Eclipse, etc.
AG
12:25 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 12:34 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
Karsten - is too late to make changes to the wiki?
It's never too late.
We take regularly scheduled snapshots for the release notes.
The shipping release notes always point to the latest snapshot, at the
very top of the notes.
I want to add a note about how people should include the results of
"which java && java -version && which javac && javac
-version"
in all their java related bug reports. It's important to know what
alternative somebody is using before we start looking into problems with
Eclipse, etc.
Since we have snapped the Wiki for test3 but are still working on fixing
our build of it, I'll insert this request directly into the XML and a
matching one on the Wiki.
Cheers - Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Content Services Fedora Documentation Project
http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
1:24 p.m.
Anthony> I also think it's in everybody's best interest if Sun, IBM,
Anthony> BEA _did_ package their systems using the JPackage
Anthony> guidelines, so spreading the meme that it is a requirement is
Anthony> a good idea. In a sense, it also "breaks" alternatives,
Anthony> since users may put /opt/whatever in their path. Why
Anthony> encourage something that is just bad practice?
I think we ought to make a strong attempt to push this, while it could
still have some effect. We can always soften it later if we don't
convince upstream.
Tom
5702
days inactive
5715
days old
java-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
20 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Anthony Green -
Chris Hubick -
Gary Benson -
Ian Pilcher -
Joe Desbonnet -
Karsten Wade -
Robert "kebernet" Cooper -
Tom Tromey -
Weiqi Gao