"Anthony Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
I'm not very familiar with Java's security framework here so I'll take your word for it. Brian -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
