> -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Wyett <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 10:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [CentOS] JavaFX on C7 ? > > On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 21:52 -0400, Fred Smith wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > I'm getting: > > > > Error: JavaFX runtime components are missing, and are required to run > > this application > > <SNIP> > > Hi, > > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/3299701 > > You can always use Oracles Java if you wish. > > Regards > > Phil <SNIP>
A somewhat more accessible answer is at [1], though it is a bit depressing: "Does Red Hat's OpenJDK distribution included JavaFX? No. Red Hat does not have plans to deliver JavaFX or the OpenJFX project in our distribution." I thought JavaFX/openJFX was integrated into openjdk-11 (actually 9 according to the openjdk site), so I expected to see something along the lines of 'not in JDK8, but included standard with JDK11'. The above statement suggests they did not even build it into 11 on RHEL7 [2], and possibly not even on RHEL8. It might be interesting to know why... could it be a combo similar to [5] and not wanting to drop $2M/year on the MPEGLA cabal to do like Cisco[4]? I have been told that getting javafx to build, on EL, is quite a bit of pain and thus have not tried it myself. Though I have been eyeing the work over at [3] wondering how much grief it would be to start with that, port it to 11 and try to use it with cisco's h264[4] instead of ffmpeg[5]. In the meantime, it looks like if we really need JFX, we will have to stoop down to the Oracle version and the maintenance fun that brings. Hope this helps, and please let us know if you find a better or workable way[6] before we do. [1] https://access.redhat.com/articles/1299013#FAQ [2] confirmed by Fred Smith, when he opened this thread. [3] https://github.com/atejeda/openjfx-el [4] https://www.openh264.org/ [5] I need it to work, but I need it unquestionably legal. I may disagree with Patents on math and logic, but they are legal in the country I work in, and thus must not be breached when working for its government. AFAIK some of the needed stuff in ffmpeg is still covered. [6] besides ditching the javafx portions of the program, which is what I am truly considering. -- Even when this disclaimer is not here: I am not a contracting officer. I do not have authority to make or modify the terms of any contract. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list [email protected] https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
