I just noticed them here (http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/) and looked back and didn't see any note of them on this list. I see they are licensed "DLJ 1.1" - this I guess - http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-v1.1.txt - which surprisingly looks like they're legal to distribute (with an operating system). Is that correct?
What does CentOS plan to do with the rpms? Can someone give some information on what stage of testing they're at and anything else to know about them please.
Thanks,
Greg
On 8/10/06, Greg Swallow - SkyNet gregswallow@skynetonline.ca wrote:
I just noticed them here (http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/) and looked back and didn't see any note of them on this list. I see they are licensed "DLJ 1.1" - this I guess - http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-v1.1.txt - which surprisingly looks like they're legal to distribute (with an operating system). Is that correct?
DLJ does make it legal to distribute, although it's not open source, and some distros are avoiding it. The rpms aren't quite perfect yet. They're essentially a hasty build from dlj sources, and using the jpackage spec. In the coming days I'll be rewriting the spec to take advantage of the added extraction options in the dlj linux .bin file, as well as making sure everything gets where it needs to be.
What does CentOS plan to do with the rpms? Can someone give some information on what stage of testing they're at and anything else to know about them please.
Right now they install fine, and work for most things, but a couple files are missing from them, notably, rt.jar so some java applications or custom builds won't work. They'll be updated soon and will be maintained at least for CentOS 4. Right now I'm finishing up a build for postgis to be included in the dev repository, and once that's done, I'm getting back to work on the java packages.
Any other info about them you'd like?
Jim Perrin wrote:
On 8/10/06, Greg Swallow - SkyNet gregswallow@skynetonline.ca wrote:
I just noticed them here (http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/i386/RPMS/) and looked back and didn't see any note of them on this list. I see they are licensed "DLJ 1.1" - this I guess - http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-v1.1.txt - which surprisingly looks like they're legal to distribute (with an operating system). Is that correct?
DLJ does make it legal to distribute, although it's not open source,
...
Right now they install fine, and work for most things, but a couple
...
Any other info about them you'd like?
What's the reasoning for renaming the (jpackage) package name from java-1.5.0-sun to java-1.5.0-centos?
Offhand, I'd consider that modification odd/unwise, unless there's some good (but not obvious to me) justification for doing so.
-- Rex
What's the reasoning for renaming the (jpackage) package name from java-1.5.0-sun to java-1.5.0-centos?
Offhand, I'd consider that modification odd/unwise, unless there's some good (but not obvious to me) justification for doing so.
Simply, it's not sun java, so there's no need or reason to have the sun name there. The java package is from https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/developer.html, released under the DLJ license. The original binary is jdk-1_5_0_07-distro-linux-i586.bin
Because it's built for Centos, centos is added to the name. There are differences between this java, and the java jdk found at sun, so calling them both sun java would be incorrect and may lead to confusion though the differences are mostly in the jdk packaging and attached license.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Jim Perrin wrote:
What's the reasoning for renaming the (jpackage) package name from java-1.5.0-sun to java-1.5.0-centos?
Offhand, I'd consider that modification odd/unwise, unless there's some good (but not obvious to me) justification for doing so.
Simply, it's not sun java, so there's no need or reason to have the sun name there. The java package is from https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/developer.html, released under the DLJ license. The original binary is jdk-1_5_0_07-distro-linux-i586.bin
Because it's built for Centos, centos is added to the name. There are differences between this java, and the java jdk found at sun, so calling them both sun java would be incorrect and may lead to confusion though the differences are mostly in the jdk packaging and attached license.
The name appended is the upstream provider. Therefor it is not IBM's java and not BEA's java and certainly not CentOS's java. It is SUN's java :)
So yes, like Rex suggested, it should have appended 'sun' not 'centos'
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
The name appended is the upstream provider. Therefor it is not IBM's java and not BEA's java and certainly not CentOS's java. It is SUN's java :)
So yes, like Rex suggested, it should have appended 'sun' not 'centos'
Then maybe we need to call it -sun.centos or something
Regards Lance
Lance Davis wrote:
The name appended is the upstream provider. Therefor it is not IBM's java and not BEA's java and certainly not CentOS's java. It is SUN's
java
:)
So yes, like Rex suggested, it should have appended 'sun' not 'centos'
Then maybe we need to call it -sun.centos or something
CentOS should probably name it what you'd guess RedHat would name it if they packaged it for RHEL4. I think "java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.06-1.centos" is the way to go. That's similar to the naming of the IBM java rpm's on the RHEL4 Extras CD.
Greg
Greg Swallow - SkyNet wrote:
Lance Davis wrote:
The name appended is the upstream provider. Therefor it is not IBM's java and not BEA's java and certainly not CentOS's java. It is SUN's
java
:)
So yes, like Rex suggested, it should have appended 'sun' not 'centos'
Then maybe we need to call it -sun.centos or something
CentOS should probably name it what you'd guess RedHat would name it if they packaged it for RHEL4. I think "java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.06-1.centos" is the way to go. That's similar to the naming of the IBM java rpm's on the RHEL4 Extras CD.
agreed, much better.
-- Rex
-
Dag Wieers -
Greg Swallow - SkyNet -
Jim Perrin -
Lance Davis -
Rex Dieter