On 05/31/2012 09:33 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>> > OpenJDK6 will no longer get security updates after November 2012:
>> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-February/002514.html
>> > A large part of the problem is that we will not have access to all the
>> > security vulnerabi
Hi Deepak,
First, thaks a lot for you patience explaining things you and other
OpenJDK developers should already have discussed to exaustion.
OpenJDK6 will no longer get security updates after November 2012:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-February/002514.html
A large par
* Fernando Lozano [2012-05-31 15:12]:
> Hi Deepak,
>
> >java-1.6.0-openjdk and java-1.7.0-openjdk can co-exist side by side
> >happily -- you can even use alternatives to switch the default if you
> >really want to.
> >
> >We just cannot ship 6 in F17 because it will EOL well before F17 does
> >a
Hi Deepak,
java-1.6.0-openjdk and java-1.7.0-openjdk can co-exist side by side
happily -- you can even use alternatives to switch the default if you
really want to.
We just cannot ship 6 in F17 because it will EOL well before F17 does
and we cannot ship a known insecure version.
Thanks for th
Hi Andrew,
I tried installing OpenJDK6 packages from F16 but yum complains they are
obsoleted by OpenJDK7. I also tried downloading IcedTea6 sources and
compiling, but they stop with an "internal compiler error".
That should work. I'd like to know more. It indicates a pretty major
gcc bug.
And
Hi,
On 05/31/2012 02:24 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>>> I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
>>> mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
>>> would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
>>> Java 6.
>> We did
* Fernando Lozano [2012-05-31 09:26]:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> >>I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
> >>mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
> >>would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
> >>Java 6.
> >We di
Hi Andrew,
I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
Java 6.
We did think about it, but OpenJDK 6 is going to be EOL'd this y
On 05/31/2012 02:09 PM, Christopher Svanefalk wrote:
> I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
> mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
> would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
> Java 6.
We did think abou
I find this design decision very odd, exactly for the reasons you
mentioned. Java 7 is, to my knowledge, far from universally supported. I
would have waited for at least another release or two before phasing out
Java 6.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I was
On 05/31/2012 12:57 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
> I was surprized that F17 uses OpenJDK7 by default but does not includes
> OpenJDK6 packages also, like F16 did.
>
> If I have some app which cannot run on Java 7, what should I do? I know
> I can download the proprietary JDK6 from Oracle, but I'd
11 matches
Mail list logo
