Re: Security provider fallback

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> writes:

Mark> The following prints a warning when non of the security provider files
Mark> could be read or non of them contain any valid entries and falls back to
Mark> the standard Gnu provider. If the security provider files do exist, but
Mark> just don't contain any provider the user gets what was asked for.

Mark> This helps in situations where the security file is missing or not
Mark> correctly installed (which seems to happen often with VMs). It also
Mark> fixes a couple of Mauve failures that would happen if you did a make
Mark> check without a make install first (and no old installation was
Mark> available) like most autobuilders do.

My first inclination is not to do this.  The class library is a
library; printing to stderr like this is a bit unfriendly.  It seems
to violate the bounds of what a library ought to do.

I'd like to know more about the situation that lead up to this patch.
I assume you ran into some trouble?  I don't like to say "no", but at
least in this case I need to be convinced.

Mark> WARNING: could not properly read security provider files:
Mark>          file:///usr/local/gcc34/lib/security/libgcj.security
Mark>          file:///usr/local/gcc34/lib/security/classpath.security
Mark>          Falling back to standard GNU security provider

The wording is fine.

Tom