Re: gcj and etch freeze
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.
My spam trap is email@example.com. Note: this address is only intended for
spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.