[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcj and etch freeze

On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:42:03AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > 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.

I wouldn't know them by bug number; previously though, the problem was that
gcjwebplugin didn't have appropriate sandboxing.

> > (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.

That sounds like a terrible amount of complexity to me.  I can't imagine why
it would ever be beneficial to carry more than one version of gcjwebplugin
around in the archive at a time.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: