sun java rpms in on dev.centos.org

> 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.


-- 
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

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,  dagwieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/  
--
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power]
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

> 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'

Then maybe we need to call it -sun.centos or something

Regards
Lance
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Lance Davis wrote:
> > 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'
> 
> Then maybe we need to call it -sun.centos or something

CentOS should probably name it what you'd guess RedHat
would name it if they
packaged it for RHEL4.  I think
"java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.06-1.centos" is the
way to go.  That's similar to the naming of the IBM java
rpm's on the RHEL4
Extras CD.

Greg

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-develcentos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel