Johnny Hughes a écrit : > 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: >>>>>> Karanbir >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> suggest >>>>>> otherwise. >>>>> 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. >> >> John, >> >> 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: > > http://dev.centos.org/centos/5/testing/i386/RPMS/ > > 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. > > Thanks. > Johnny Hughes There is something that I don't have clearly understood, why couldn't you use icedtea java instead ?