[CentOS-devel] rhwas 5 work?

Johnny Hughes johnny at centos.org
Thu Apr 10 16:23:46 UTC 2008


Les Mikesell wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There is something that I don't have clearly understood, why 
>>>>>> couldn't you use icedtea java instead ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because icedtea is Java 1.7, which isn't really there yet. This one is
>>>>> Java 1.6.
>>>>
>>>> And even Java 1.6 is a strech, as the webstack is currently built 
>>>> using java-1.4.2 ... which we can not use to build since we can not 
>>>> distribute it.
>>>
>>> What's the problem with a jpackage nosrc rpm and instructions to 
>>> download your own copy of the java binary from Sun and execute this 
>>> command?
>>>
>>
>> Because CentOS does not distribute RPMS that we can't get repo closure 
>> on.
> 
> By popular demand?  Dictated by some arbitrary policy?

Because I said so :D

> 
>> People expect that if they say yum install jbossas it will work and 
>> NOT require them to build stuff.
> 
> I don't know anyone who currently expects that.  Those expectations were 
> dashed long ago in the fedora/centos world along with any expectations 
> of java being usable at all.  They used to expect to go spend a day 
> reading the jpackage docs to find the right pieces, then grab the Sun 
> package, rebuild the nosrc rpm, then use yum to install the jpackage 
> apps.  But current fedora and Centos 5.x include broken versions of what 
> jpackage used to provide and jpackage doesn't even have documentation on 
> how to use their packages with them even thought the nosrc rpm for sun 
> would probably still work.
> 
>> Also ... I can't build GPL stuff against NON-FREE stuff and distribute 
>> it as GPL :D
> 
> Aggregation isn't a problem.

It isn't aggregation IF it is a derivative work.

> 
>> (Well or at least it is a questionable proactice)
> 
> Nobody questioned it when Sun was the only possible JVM.
> 

Sure it was ... you don't see any of that stuff in Fedora do you?  Or 
Gentoo or Debian.  If it was such a good idea, they all would have had 
it in there several years ago.

>> AND since there is a FREE / GPL version available that is what we will 
>> use or we won't distribute it.
> 
> But what about that expectation of working...
> 

If it doesn't work it doesn't ship ... and we are right back where we 
started.

The bottom line is if you require that, buy a RHWAS and jboss 
subscription ... at least if we can't make a redistributable one work.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20080410/f0aad195/signature.bin


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list