Java installation question

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am So, den 19.12.2004 schrieb Jeff Kinz um 19:53:

> > The way to go with Java from FC3 on is to use http://www.jpackage.org.

> Just out of curiosity, what is that Java package the best way to go
> for FC3. rather than say Sun's ?

> Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.

Jeff,

do you mean "why" rather than "what"? I only would understand the
question if it starts with "why is that Java package the best [...] for
FC3?".

It is because FC3 comes with packages to support jpackage
(java-1.4.2-gcj-compat + jpackage-utils) and FC4 and later will
integrate jpackage even more. This is to be read as a statement by Paul
Nasrat <pnasrat at redhat.com> on the testers list:

topic "Re: installing Java" on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:18:42 -0500

> For Fedora Core 3, do I need to install a Java distribution, or is
there 
> a Java that already works? A quick check shows I have a jar utility 
> installed but not, apparently, a java engine. The Release Notes say 
> nothing about Java.

yum install java-1.4.2-gcj-compat java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-devel

For gcj, else go to jpackage.org and follow the instructions on
http://jpackage.org/rebuilding.php

Build and install java-1.4.2-VENDOR you'll want to install the -devel
package, plus -fonts and -plugin for applets.

Then add the jpackage repos to yum and you should be all set.

We hope to have a 1.6 release very shortly (final touches)

Paul

topic "Re: java (tomcat&others)" on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:51:08 -0500:

> why is tomcat and other java related things droped from FC3?
> i cannot find any informations about that

Most of the java packaging work is going on upstream at JPackage -
http://jpackage.org/

Hopefully 1.6 will be coming out soon - with all sorts of shiny newness.

Paul

On the developers list with topic "Re: Java and Rawhide?" on Wed, 29 Sep
2004 17:45:27 +0100:

> Should be no problem to push your fixed java packages to Extras, which
> can happen anytime even after the release of FC3.

JPackage is already the upstream - so pushing there makes more sense
than Extras IMHO.  

The hope is we can support both free (including native) and proprietary
JDKs.

Paul

On the rpm list with topic "Re: rpm --addsign seems broken" on Fri, 10
Dec 2004 20:34:16 -0500:

However - I'd recommend using the a sane (http://jpackage.org) JDK built
on a modern rpm system and get the benefit of FHS compliant packaging,
alternative JDKs, many packages, etc. See the non-free section and also
http://jpackage.org/rebuilding.php 

Paul

So I think the Fedora (Red Hat) strategy regarding Java support is
clear.

Alexander


-- 
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | new address - new key: 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 (Tettnang) on Athlon kernel 2.6.9-1.6_FC2smp 
Serendipity 22:08:26 up 9 days, 16:49, load average: 0.29, 0.71, 0.61 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20041219/cc9a84cf/attachment-0001.sig>