[CentOS-devel] rhwas 5 work?

Sun Mar 30 02:06:18 UTC 2008
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

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:


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 

Johnny Hughes

-------------- 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-devel/attachments/20080329/4b3b75b2/attachment-0005.sig>