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 at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]