[CentOS-devel] rhwas 5 work?
johnny at centos.org
Sun Mar 30 18:17:21 UTC 2008
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> John Summerfield wrote:
>>> William L. Maltby wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 20:29 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>>> John Summerfield wrote:
>>>>>> I find you very difficult to deal with, and I don't want that. Can we
>>>>>> try to keep things calm?
>>>>> I am always calm :D
>>>>>> I have no standing with the CentOS project, and I don't wish to
>>>>>> become a
>>>>>> developer. I know myself well enough to understand that it's not
>>>>>> something I do well, even though a resume of my experience might
>>>>> Well, the whole point to CentOS is that anyone and everyone should be
>>>>> able to help along. Dont need a tag / title..
>>>> And a good part of that is contributing ideas, pointers, support to
>>>> others, etc. IMO. Not everyone has time or inclination to contribute in
>>>> ways that the project might like.
>>>> And that fits within the spirit of open source, no?
>>> Thanks Bill.
>>> In this particular case, Johnny more than anyone else speaks for
>>> CentOS, and I probably least of all.
>>> CentOS has a problem with the Sun licence. On checking, it didn't
>>> seem so bad. Okay, so it maybe still isn't good enough. Perhaps one
>>> of the leaders ought tell Sun; in view of its decision to open-source
>>> Java, maybe Sun will move a little more. I don't think IBM will argue
>>> against more freedom, it's been taking shots at Sun over the matter
>>> for years.
>>> I'm the last person who should be negotiating on CentOS's behalf,
>>> _this_ has to be done by an acknowledged leader, whether it's Johnny,
>>> Karanbir or someone else. Someone with a sound knowledge of the
>>> issues, someone Sun will see as someone representing the project.
>>> If the licence issue is resolved satisfactorily, _then_ there will be
>>> some work to do, and maybe someone with needs in that area will step up.
>> Actually ... Sun DID do something about the license, they changed it
>> completely for new versions of Java to GPL :D
>> The issue is, that the versions of Java that is GPL is 1.6.0 and newer
>> ... and that CentOS-5 uses 1.4.2 level things.
>> The problem we have is with distributing the 1.4.2 version ... which
>> Sun really can't change more than they have (or at least they seem
>> unwilling to do so).
>> The GPL'ed version, 1.6.0, I am trying to get working on CentOS-5 in a
>> sane way right now.
>> If we can make that work ... AND IF it will build the required java
>> bits ... AND AGAIN IF we can make that work with the other gcj java
>> bits already throughout CentOS, then we will be in business.
>> That is really the issue.
> OK ... some progress on this
> There are now java-1.6.0-openjdk packages for i386 in the testing repo:
> I am working on the x86_64 packages now.
> The next step will be to see if we can use these to make the JAVA bits
> in RHWAS.
For anyone interested in trying the openjdk packages, the i386 and
x86_64 java-1.6.0-openjdk packages are now posted in the testing repo.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20080330/f3bc3702/signature.bin
More information about the CentOS-devel