On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 02:53:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:54:39PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Any chance gcj >= 4.1.1-11j1 can make it into etch? > > gcj-4.1 hasn't been frozen yet, but whether this gets into etch depends on > when it's uploaded.
I see. Then I suppose it's entirely up to the maintainers. > > Would be very nice to have gcjwebplugin-4.1. We'll have no browser java > > support > > otherwise. > > Is gcjwebplugin in a presentable state yet? I'm not sure (at the time I wrote this, I hadn't tried it). So far I found it breaks with threads (#383704), but this doesn't sound hard to fix. IMHO, if it works minimaly, and doesn't bring down the browser in case of failure (like in #383704 ;), I would consider it more presentable than having no java browser support at all. > Last I knew, it still had > serious security problems. Which ones? I can't see anything in the BTS. > (BTW, why does the plugin package need to have > the upstream version number in its name?) It's a little weird. The package that puts the plugin into firefox dir (via symlink) is java-gcj-compat-plugin, but gcjwebplugin-4.1 contains the actualy object. I suppose when a few versions of gcjwebplugin-X.Y exist, java-gcj-compat-plugin will decide which one is more suitable by changing the dependency and the symlink. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
