Jesse Keating wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:56:05 -0400 Thomas Fitzsimmons fitzsim@redhat.com wrote:

...

This was for gcjwebplugin-on-libgcj. The "icedtea-plugin rocks!" thread is referring to gcjwebplugin-on-IcedTea which is (audit-pending) much more secure. To make gcjwebplugin-on-IcedTea installed and enabled by default as the original poster is proposing, we'd need to have IcedTea available in comps.xml. It's too soon to replace GCJ with IcedTea, because of the architecture coverage issues, but does anyone see a problem with including IcedTea alongside GCJ in the default comps.xml? That would mean that IcedTea and GCJ would be installed by default, and IcedTea would take precedence on architectures where it was available, and GCJ would be the fallback, selectable using alternatives. Then the IcedTea plugin would be installed by default on architectures where it is available. I like this approach because there is demand for IcedTea to be included by default.

I thought this is what was going to be done anyway, that's the Feature configuration I voted for.

I didn't think IcedTea was suitable for inclusion in comps because I didn't know the compose tools failed gracefully on exclusive-arch packages. OK to commit this patch?

Tom