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 -------------- 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-0007.sig>