Brian wrote: > I apologize for not having read that link yet, but how does changing > the name to gcj.security have to do with fixing a bug? Is this really > gcj specific?
It's possible to have an installation with native shared library providers and no .jar implementation. You really don't want to have a global classpath.security file in this case because gcj is the only implementation that will find and use those providers. AG _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
