Re: [website-dev] JRE issue/questions...

Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marcus Lange <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Kay Schenk wrote:

Hi Christian,

>>> * why do we *by default* include a JRE? I still would argue this is NOT
>>> a good idea or necessary for the most part
>> I was told that the installer needs Java to work, at least on Unix.
> 
> That's a stupid answer. If you need java to install, but java is part
> of the install, then you got the chicken-egg problem.
> 
> You need another installer that installs the included jre first, and
> then launch a java based installer.
> This is stupid. I cannot find another word for it.

please don't shut the messenger. ;-)

> Besides installing debs or rpms using a java installer is a stupid
> thing to do anyway.
> 
> Doesn't make it any better that at least the rpms of a java from
> java.com are a nightmare packaging wise. They abuse the packaging
> system.
> Any distribution out there has Sun-Java in their repositories, openjdk as well.

I'm sorry but at the moment it is like it is and cannot be cahnged. If 
you think there is room for improvemant please file an issue for this.

Best regards

Marcus