Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:56:05 -0400
Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim(a)redhat.com> 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.
I didn't think IcedTea was suitable for inclusion in comps because I didn't know
the compose tools failed gracefully on exclusive-arch packages. OK to commit