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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
