http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910507 Fridrich Strba changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #8 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.