strugging with things here...
tried tracking the info on the Wiki (which apparently is now in need of a maintainer)... http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/JavaOnCentOS
My primary interest is using Xalan/Saxon/xslt/xsl-fo docbook generation.
I was thinking that all I really need is jre but downloaded both jre and jdk just in case.
can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? (after removing both jdk & jre)...
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 56835774 Sep 25 00:47 jdk-6u3-linux-i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18835725 Sep 25 00:45 jre-6u3-linux-i586.rpm
I tried installing each of them but they never show up in # alternatives --config java
# rpm -qa|grep jpackage jpackage-utils-1.7.3-1jpp.2.el5
# rpm -ivh jre-6u3-linux-i586.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:jre ########################################### [100%] Unpacking JAR files... rt.jar... jsse.jar... charsets.jar... localedata.jar... plugin.jar... javaws.jar... deploy.jar...
# alternatives --config java
There is 1 program that provides 'java'.
Selection Command ----------------------------------------------- *+ 1 /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.4.2-gcj/bin/java
Enter to keep the current selection[+], or type selection number:
Craig
----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig White" craig@tobyhouse.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:15 PM Subject: [CentOS] Installing java on CentOS 5
strugging with things here...
tried tracking the info on the Wiki (which apparently is now in need of a maintainer)... http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/JavaOnCentOS
My primary interest is using Xalan/Saxon/xslt/xsl-fo docbook generation.
I was thinking that all I really need is jre but downloaded both jre and jdk just in case.
can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? (after removing both jdk & jre)...
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 56835774 Sep 25 00:47 jdk-6u3-linux-i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18835725 Sep 25 00:45 jre-6u3-linux-i586.rpm
I tried installing each of them but they never show up in # alternatives --config java
# rpm -qa|grep jpackage jpackage-utils-1.7.3-1jpp.2.el5
# rpm -ivh jre-6u3-linux-i586.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:jre ########################################### [100%] Unpacking JAR files... rt.jar... jsse.jar... charsets.jar... localedata.jar... plugin.jar... javaws.jar... deploy.jar...
# alternatives --config java
Download the RPM and install that matches your version of JDK from here ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/RPMS.non-free in your case wget ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/RPMS.non-free/java-1.6.0-sun-compat-1.6.0.03-1jpp.i586.rpm Install the RPM and you should be all set.
The Wiki does state to install both packages but the link is bad and the current JDK is 6 update 3 Explaination can be found here http://www.jpackage.org/installation.php
There is 1 program that provides 'java'.
Selection Command
*+ 1 /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.4.2-gcj/bin/java
Enter to keep the current selection[+], or type selection number:
Craig
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 15:21 -0600, Dan Carl wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig White" craig@tobyhouse.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:15 PM Subject: [CentOS] Installing java on CentOS 5
strugging with things here...
tried tracking the info on the Wiki (which apparently is now in need of a maintainer)... http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/JavaOnCentOS
My primary interest is using Xalan/Saxon/xslt/xsl-fo docbook generation.
I was thinking that all I really need is jre but downloaded both jre and jdk just in case.
can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? (after removing both jdk & jre)...
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 56835774 Sep 25 00:47 jdk-6u3-linux-i586.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18835725 Sep 25 00:45 jre-6u3-linux-i586.rpm
I tried installing each of them but they never show up in # alternatives --config java
# rpm -qa|grep jpackage jpackage-utils-1.7.3-1jpp.2.el5
# rpm -ivh jre-6u3-linux-i586.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:jre ########################################### [100%] Unpacking JAR files... rt.jar... jsse.jar... charsets.jar... localedata.jar... plugin.jar... javaws.jar... deploy.jar...
# alternatives --config java
Download the RPM and install that matches your version of JDK from here ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/RPMS.non-free in your case wget ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/RPMS.non-free/java-1.6.0-sun-compat-1.6.0.03-1jpp.i586.rpm Install the RPM and you should be all set.
The Wiki does state to install both packages but the link is bad and the current JDK is 6 update 3 Explaination can be found here http://www.jpackage.org/installation.php
---- thanks - I got it installed.
I only wish I understood what I did so I can do it again next year ;-)
I hope now that java is GPL that it is packaged/bundled to eliminate this nonsense
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 17:19 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
I hope now that java is GPL that it is packaged/bundled to eliminate this nonsense
The versions are using and adjunct components people want are not GPLd
downer - thanks
On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
I've had pretty good luck using the opennms packaged version. Pick the yum config rpm from here: http://yum.opennms.org/ (I recommend the 'unstable' repo if you are actually going to install opennms). If you don't want opennms, you can just 'yum install jdk'. If you do want OpenNMS, start back here: http://www.opennms.org/index.php/Main_Page and follow through the Development 1.3.8, Quick Start, RPM link and follow the instructions which are now amazingly easy on Centos5.
The real question about java here is why is there no love between japackage.org and RHEL5/Centos5 - or any Fedora version >6?
Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution License. The FAQ says that this really doesn't matter, the License says otherwise. And I tend to "believe" Licenses, because that's what you have ...
Cheers,
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution License. The FAQ says that this really doesn't matter, the License says otherwise. And I tend to "believe" Licenses, because that's what you have ...
There aren't a lot of lawsuits over software because all responsibilities are always disclaimed away anyway - and if there were, java would be about the least likely target. I'm not sure how it is any different than software you might have created yourself that could be the target of a lawsuit or any other package where you might be included as a distributor.
Anyway - as long as the opennms guys have it, it doesn't matter.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution License. The FAQ says that this really doesn't matter, the License says otherwise. And I tend to "believe" Licenses, because that's what you have ...
There aren't a lot of lawsuits over software because all responsibilities are always disclaimed away anyway -
One is sufficient to impair CentOS; Les, make a contribution of $10k$ and we'll get a formal opinion. If that is unappealing, tender along a update patch for the bottom of the CentOS wiki page Java installation instructions (the top still works just fine). Absent deeds, words are empty.
Anyway - as long as the opennms guys have it, it doesn't matter.
Thre is plenty of trolling and people offering casual legal opinions at 24x7 in debian-legal for many years, and presently in fedora-adv for the last couple days.
-- Russ Herrold
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 15:19 -0500, R P Herrold wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On the other hand, redistribution is permitted...
Yeah, but there's still that indemnification clause in the Distribution License. The FAQ says that this really doesn't matter, the License says otherwise. And I tend to "believe" Licenses, because that's what you have ...
There aren't a lot of lawsuits over software because all responsibilities are always disclaimed away anyway -
One is sufficient to impair CentOS; Les, make a contribution of $10k$ and we'll get a formal opinion. If that is unappealing, tender along a update patch for the bottom of the CentOS wiki page Java installation instructions (the top still works just fine). Absent deeds, words are empty.
---- yeah but thank goodness, we can have plenty of them (words) ----
Anyway - as long as the opennms guys have it, it doesn't matter.
Thre is plenty of trolling and people offering casual legal opinions at 24x7 in debian-legal for many years, and presently in fedora-adv for the last couple days.
---- fedora-adv ? translation ?
Craig
R P Herrold wrote:
Anyway - as long as the opennms guys have it, it doesn't matter.
Thre is plenty of trolling and people offering casual legal opinions at 24x7 in debian-legal for many years, and presently in fedora-adv for the last couple days.
That still leaves the question unanswered about jpackage.org. Is there a reason no one there is packaging for RHEL5/CentOS5 or recent fedoras?
Their nosrc package for Sun Java took a bit of work to construct on earlier RH-style systems, but now there is not even that.
-
Craig White -
Dan Carl -
Les Mikesell -
R P Herrold -
Ralph Angenendt