Comment # 8 on bug 910507 from Fridrich Strba

(In reply to grant k from comment #7)
> As soon as 1.8.0 updates to > 1.8.0, then changes to the java.security file
> will need to remade.  Is that correct?

We currently have 1.8.0.40~b25 or so. That means that whole 1.8.0.x is having
the same structure, so as long as your alternatives chose the java 1.8.0.x as
system java, it will not change.

If you use the preview java 9 which installs itself as java-1.9.0, you wil
anyway not be able to use it since java 9 kicked out the extension mechanism
and having anything in lib/ext will cause java to abort. Any existing binary
that uses the extension system will have to be ported to the new modular java
when it is fully available.

> If so, what's the namespace policy?  will the dirnames stay at *1.8.0* for
> the entire 1.8.x branch future?

Given the upstream 1.8 status, there will most likely never be 1.8.1 :)

> (2) BC's not Oracle/Sun-signed, so it can't be persistently added to
> Oracle's lib/ext install path -- only to OpenJDK's.

I don't expect us to ever be able to sign anything with Oractle/Sun signing key
:). Moreover, as I stated, the extension system is living its last years. I
will simply close this bug and it would be nice to open a new one for the
bouncycastle upgrade.

BTW, I pushed to 13.2 updates a fresher version of 1.8.0.40, that is very close
to what the 1.8.0.40 will look like. Worth to try when it lands in the
channels.