[CentOS-docs] Suggestion for "how to" section: easy way to install the JDK?
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > As Russ has said, they are not. More context (said in our back archive, but recapped recently [and it should have crossed http://planet.centos.org/ when I issued this update] at http://orcorc.blogspot.com/2010/08/chickens-coming-home-to-roost.html which point to the primary source of the analysis of problems a license and rights review turned up) > Indeed. Unfortunately we are not there. Not yet. Really, I do not see a future in which Oracle CAN sufficiently 'free' Java at least through v 1.6 series; and the related test kit [assuming for the sake of argument that it was INCLINED to do so]. The upshot of recent LSB calls is that the 'trial use' of Java will be withdrawn in the upcoming 4.1 refresh, until and unless this future brightens [probably at least 2-3 years] -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Suggestion for "how to" section: easy way to install the JDK?
On 10/09/2010 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote: > On 09/10/10 08:32, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > > > > >> At least the jre package (and I am almost sure jdk too) from Sun comes >> with the following structure: >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Apr 10 01:25 default -> /usr/java/latest >> drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 Jun 28 23:34 jre1.6.0_20 >> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Jun 28 23:35 latest -> /usr/java/jre1.6.0_20 >> >> Using /usr/java/latest and / or /usr/java/default in your scripts makes >> them immune to upgrades, as long as you stick with Sun's packages ( >> which - sad but true - make the java-openjdk / gcj packages useless and >> offer ( for the moment ) better compatibility with the real world. At >> least from I where I stand. >> >> > > Are these redistributable? I'm sure they are as Red Hat has Sun's Java > packages on it's > RHEL Supplementary disk for RHEL5 which it (re)distributes to customers. > > As Russ has said, they are not. > In which case why doesn't someone just repackage these and stick them in > CentOS Extras/rpmforge or somewhere and the problem largely goes away. > Or am I missing something? > Yup, you miss the fact that RH [ probably ] has agreements which allow them to redistribute some binary-only packages (even flash player) via a special channel to their customers. > If we had decent packages that Just Worked, we wouldn't need convoluted > documentation on how to install Java. > Indeed. Unfortunately we are not there. Not yet. However a 3 steps procedure ( 1) download from Sun; 2) install rpm 3) create a symlink for your browser ) is not that bad, given the previous options that we had. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Suggestion for "how to" section: easy way to install the JDK?
On 09/10/10 13:13, R P Herrold wrote: > On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, Ned Slider wrote: > >> Are these redistributable? I'm sure they are as Red Hat has >> Sun's Java packages on it's RHEL Supplementary disk for >> RHEL5 which it (re)distributes to customers. > > No, not without exposing oneself to some liability and > obligations to Sun / Oracle. > > -- Russ herrold OK, thanks for that Russ, and probably explains why no one has done the obvious before now! Regards. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] but what if i don't care about centos 4?
On 9 October 2010 11:52, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > in any event, the question remains -- should all centos doc pages > give equally meticulous coverage to both centos 4 and 5? The CentOS wiki exists to provide documentation for all CentOS products. As CentOS-4 is a valid CentOS product, it should have the same treatment as C-5 and (in the future) C-6. That being said, a wiki page could be written / maintained for C-5, with an note mentioning any C-4 variance at the appropriate place. Also, there are cases where a page is only relevant for C-4, C-5 or C-X. Alan. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Suggestion for "how to" section: easy way to install the JDK?
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, Ned Slider wrote: > Are these redistributable? I'm sure they are as Red Hat has > Sun's Java packages on it's RHEL Supplementary disk for > RHEL5 which it (re)distributes to customers. No, not without exposing oneself to some liability and obligations to Sun / Oracle. -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] but what if i don't care about centos 4?
On Sat, 9 Oct 2010, JohnS wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 05:58 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > so while i'm more than happy to write/update docs, i won't be > > spending any time whatsoever with centos 4. so what does one do under > > those circumstances? again, this is a perfectly serious question. i > > know it's not fair to short-change centos 4 -- i just have no interest > > in it. > > > > rday > --- > Perhaps it bit you or something or rubbed you the wrong way? > > Ohh, CentOS 4 is getting jealous already. Where's the love? just to be clear, i have nothing whatsoever against centos 4. but being that i'm relatively new to centos compared to most of the folks here, i've never used it. and while it certainly deserves the love of good documentation, it's simply a case of not enough hours in the day. i'm already working with fedora, ubuntu and, now, centos 5. i just don't have the time to install centos 4 and give it equal attention. my current client is installing *new* systems -- there will be no RHEL 4 whatever, so it would be a poor investment of my time to get familiar with it. in any event, the question remains -- should all centos doc pages give equally meticulous coverage to both centos 4 and 5? rday -- Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] but what if i don't care about centos 4?
On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 05:58 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > so while i'm more than happy to write/update docs, i won't be > spending any time whatsoever with centos 4. so what does one do under > those circumstances? again, this is a perfectly serious question. i > know it's not fair to short-change centos 4 -- i just have no interest > in it. > > rday --- Perhaps it bit you or something or rubbed you the wrong way? Ohh, CentOS 4 is getting jealous already. Where's the love? John ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] but what if i don't care about centos 4?
absolutely serious question -- i appreciate that it's important to still document how things are done in centos 4, but i have precisely zero interest in that. given how long centos 5 has been out, and that centos 6 is not that far down the road given the alleged release schedule for RHEL 6 (rumoured end of year), i plan on investing my time in centos 5 and 6 exclusively. so while i'm more than happy to write/update docs, i won't be spending any time whatsoever with centos 4. so what does one do under those circumstances? again, this is a perfectly serious question. i know it's not fair to short-change centos 4 -- i just have no interest in it. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Suggestion for "how to" section: easy way to install the JDK?
On 09/10/10 08:32, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > > At least the jre package (and I am almost sure jdk too) from Sun comes > with the following structure: > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Apr 10 01:25 default -> /usr/java/latest > drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 Jun 28 23:34 jre1.6.0_20 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Jun 28 23:35 latest -> /usr/java/jre1.6.0_20 > > Using /usr/java/latest and / or /usr/java/default in your scripts makes > them immune to upgrades, as long as you stick with Sun's packages ( > which - sad but true - make the java-openjdk / gcj packages useless and > offer ( for the moment ) better compatibility with the real world. At > least from I where I stand. > Are these redistributable? I'm sure they are as Red Hat has Sun's Java packages on it's RHEL Supplementary disk for RHEL5 which it (re)distributes to customers. In which case why doesn't someone just repackage these and stick them in CentOS Extras/rpmforge or somewhere and the problem largely goes away. Or am I missing something? If we had decent packages that Just Worked, we wouldn't need convoluted documentation on how to install Java. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Suggestion for "how to" section: easy way to install the JDK?
On 10/09/2010 04:33 AM, Milos Blazevic wrote: > Bob Stine wrote: > >> Milos Blazivec wrote: >> >> /... I am, in fact, interested in making adjustments to the Wiki / >> /page - but sadly not the ones you proposed Bob, since the just >> won't do / >> /the trick./ >> >> >> Hmm. I ran the executed the bin file, edited /etc/profile so that >> PATH included the "bin" directory of the sun jdk directory, added >> environment variable JDK_HOME, deleted the /usr/bin/java symlink from >> java -> /etc/alternative/java, and everything works, or at least well >> enough for me to run the Eclipse C++ IDE, which was my goal. >> >> Maybe adding the jdk was unnecessary for Eclipse to work? >> >> Could you unpack "just won't do", or point to a discussion of the issue? >> >> > What I meant is that the instructions you suggested in your first e-mail > are taken from: > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/install-linux-64-rpm-138254.html > and are all but comprehenssive, let alone appropriate for beginners. > These installation instructions have been accompanying Sun Java as long > as I can remember, and "strangely", no one cared to mention 'em in the > Wiki page... don't you think that's kinda odd? I don't - 'cause they > don't work! > > This second part (editing /etc/profiles, deleting symlinks and editing > PATH...) is NOT what you mentioned in your first e-mail. However, in my > honest oppinion, this is still not the correct way to do this. > > What you did, is that you probably got it to work for Your particular > purpose by resorting to an unconventional method (i.e. circumvent the > mechanism intended for this purpose, rather than a by-the-book > approach). By solving the problem this way, sooner or later you'll end > up breaking something. Maintainance may prove difficult later > > For me, by-the-book is using "alternatives" utility for this purpose - > intended by the makers way to handle this kind of issues. (switching > between different mail servers, etc.) > Using alternatives in the context of Java is 100% useless for ordinary users who do not want to use the stock gcj or openjdk packages ( and therefore replace them with Sun's packages). As far as I have seen on the few hundreds workstations that I maintain + the requests in the IRC channel, users only need to run - browser java plugin ( solved by installing Sun's jre + a convenient ln -s already mentioned before in this thread - java ( the binary, as in " java -Xmx400m -DuseDesktop=true -Dsun.java2d.pmoffscreen=false -jar /usr/share/jalbum/JAlbum.jar ") in order to run .jar applications - the libs needed by Eclipse, also mentioned before in the thread > Better idea is to adjust symlink to point to the desired binary, rather > than editing PATH variable, deleting the symlink,... > At least the jre package (and I am almost sure jdk too) from Sun comes with the following structure: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 Apr 10 01:25 default -> /usr/java/latest drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 Jun 28 23:34 jre1.6.0_20 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Jun 28 23:35 latest -> /usr/java/jre1.6.0_20 Using /usr/java/latest and / or /usr/java/default in your scripts makes them immune to upgrades, as long as you stick with Sun's packages ( which - sad but true - make the java-openjdk / gcj packages useless and offer ( for the moment ) better compatibility with the real world. At least from I where I stand. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
