[CentOS] yum remove 'tomcat*'?

Johnny Hughes johnny at centos.org
Tue Jul 31 16:49:00 UTC 2007


Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>>> Not from Red Hat (wrt sun java) ... they did use tomcat and gcj.  If
>>>>> you
>>>>> want sun java, I imagine you would have to change the specs and
>>>>> rebuild.
>>>>>   I have no idea how to do that (I have not looked at it at all).
>>>> Red Hat fixed their bug:
>>>> http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0365.html
>>> That has been pushed to updates ... however, I don't see it has any
>>> impact on open office.  It is related to tomcat.
>> I was trying to remove the non-working tomcat with the idea of replacing
>> it with something else and openoffice went with it.  Odd, but fixable.
>>
>>>> I haven't seen a response to centos bugzilla 0002160 that I filed a
>>>> month ago about this.
>>> I didn't see the bug before ... but it was released 7/22/2007:
>>> redhat-rpm-config-8.0.45-17.0.1.el5.centos.noarch.rpm
>> Thanks, but I thought the bug was related to the way the way the
>> java-containing rpms were built (or maybe installed..) and this rpm just
>> fixes the process.  What will it take to get working indexes into the
>> jar files for tomcat (and probably other apps) on an existing system?
>>
> 
> The new tomcat was built with the new redhat-rpm-config, so all the
> System OS files should be good.  AFAIK the bug you pointed to was to
> correct the md5sums issues for mutltiarch builds.
> 
> From the bug:
> brp-java-repack-jars is a post processing script included in
> redhat-rpm-config that removes timestamp differences in jars to ensure
> multi-lib packages do not conflict.
> 
>> Also, is there any chance of duplicating those Red Hat sun jdk rpms? I
>> think you've said no before, but I'm curious about how debian was able
>> to manage it: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/sun-java5 if it
>> is still problematic to redistribute.
>>
> 
> They are not distributable by Centos ... and they are IBM Java, not Sun
> Java.
> 
> Debain agreed to indemnify Sun ... we won't.
> 

For the record:
(f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun
    and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities,
    settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
    incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any
    third party that arises or results from (i) the use or distribution
    of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner, or
    (ii) your use or distribution of the Software in violation of the
    terms of this Agreement or applicable law.  You shall not be
    obligated under Section 2(f)(i) if such claim would not have
    occurred but for a modification made to your Operating System by
    someone not under your direction or control, and you were in
    compliance with all other terms of this Agreement.  If the Software
    README file permits certain files to be replaced or omitted from
    your distribution, then any such replacement(s) or omission(s)
    shall not be considered a breach of Section 2(a).


-------------- 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/attachments/20070731/1e982bf4/signature.bin


More information about the CentOS mailing list