Package Details: jdk-docs 9.0.1-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: jdk-docs
Description: Documentation for Oracle Java Development Kit
Upstream URL:
Licenses: custom:Oracle
Submitter: kkl2401
Maintainer: Det
Last Packager: Det
Votes: 52
Popularity: 0.844171
First Submitted: 2009-02-14 19:28
Last Updated: 2017-10-17 21:07

Latest Comments

Det commented on 2017-09-23 03:57


mirbeksm commented on 2017-09-23 02:13

Comparing PKGBUILD files for "aur/jdk-docs"@9u0-2 and "aur/jdk8-docs"@8u144-1
source array: add 'LICENSE-Oracle-Legal-Notices.txt'
md5sums array: add md5sum value of 'LICENSE-Oracle-Legal-Notices.txt'

So they look like this:

Then build succeeds.

mkoskar commented on 2017-09-22 22:07

==> Starting package()...
install: cannot stat 'LICENSE-Oracle-Legal-Notices.txt': No such file or directory
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().

mlelansky commented on 2017-09-22 12:52

Hi! Has got:

==> Validating source files with md5sums... ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!
:: failed to verify jdk-docs integrity

Det commented on 2017-07-28 12:11

Fixed again. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

student975 commented on 2017-07-27 17:48

Have got again:
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading

Det commented on 2017-07-19 09:04


student975 commented on 2017-07-19 00:17

Hi! Has got:

-> Downloading
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
100 537 100 537 0 0 816 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 1193
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- 0:00:01 --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading

Det commented on 2017-04-20 05:02

You edited your comment, but again, _what_ balking and "6 months ago" do you mean :D?

I don't see a single comment here or in my mailbox of this "notification". :D

Det commented on 2017-04-19 16:52

Hmm. Can you point me towards the issue and the comment that was brought about _friggin_ "6 months ago", and my quote of refusal to fix it? :D

WoefulDerelict commented on 2017-04-19 16:51

Det: You were notified there was an issue six months ago, baulked about fixing it and later pushed out an update with the same issue. A sane .gitignore would be so easy and have saved everyone the headache.

Det commented on 2017-04-19 14:37

I don't live in a perfect world, but "this long" = less than 24 hours. Different files.

WoefulDerelict commented on 2017-04-19 04:01

The AUR still contains incomplete zip files which have to be deleted after extracting the snapshot or cloning the repository as they interfere with properly building the package. These should have never been pushed to the AUR.

Det commented on 2017-01-19 15:16

Yeah, you don't need a git rm. Thanks.

WoefulDerelict commented on 2017-01-18 20:41

The 8u121 update is currently failing on validity check as there are invalid copies of the source files included in the repository and by extension the snapshot. makepkg doesn't overwrite these files, skipping the download phase and failing when it checks the integrity of these files.

Removing the incomplete *.zip files and starting with a clean buildspace generates the expected output.

twphoenix1982 commented on 2016-02-06 10:10

Problem with the actual PKGBUILD. (javafx-docs 8u74-2)
For the javafx-docs Split-Package.

==> Starting package_javafx-docs()...
install: the stat call for "LICENSE-JavaFX" is not posible: File or Directory not found.

kkl2401 commented on 2015-05-25 08:14

Det: You're right, I completely missed the out-of-date flag. I've updated the package to 8.45 but I'll disown it right now. Feel free to adopt it, you'll be a better maintainer.

kkl2401 commented on 2015-03-10 19:18

I've included it. It made me change paths on the filesystem a bit, so if someone has it in bookmarks as I do, they'll need to update them.

Det commented on 2015-02-02 02:47

Could you also include a javafx directory:, since JavaFX has been a part of JDK since 7u6.

kkl2401 commented on 2015-01-04 20:25

Thank you, updated.

Det commented on 2014-12-24 15:43

Since makepkg 4.2.0, the DLAGENTS line can't have quotes around "oraclelicense=a":

DLAGENTS=('http::/usr/bin/curl -LC - -b oraclelicense=a -O')

stativ commented on 2014-09-24 19:19

Regarding my makepkg issue: It's only because of the development version of makepkg, and it seems that it may be in fact a bug: I thought it was an intentional change. So there's probably no reason to change it in the PKGBUILD.

As for the difference between openjdk8-doc and jdk-docs, I did a diff between the two. The diff has about 130,000 lines, but from a quick glance it seems that most of it are different timestamps or swapped lines in files.

kkl2401 commented on 2014-09-16 09:26

BTW, a question for everybody else interested: there is also a package openjdk8-doc which has the advantage of being in the official repositories. Does this package (jdk-docs) contain anything that openjdk8-doc wouldn't? I know that technically one contains documentation for Oracle Java and the other contains documentation for OpenJDK but does that differ in practice?

kkl2401 commented on 2014-09-16 09:21

stativ: Thanks, I obviously didn't see this one.
Under which circumstances doesn't $srcdir contain the sources? Is it only because of the development version of makepkg? Is that a bug of makepkg or is that a new behavior? It sounds weird to me that $srcdir wouldn't contain the sources. :-)

stativ commented on 2014-09-06 21:06

kkl2401: fair enough.

As for the missing symlink problem I'm having, you can use $SRCDEST instead of $srcdir. It's not a nice solution, but it's guaranteed to contain the downloaded sources.

Regarding the wrong ownership: there's a typo in the PKGBUILD - you are missing "g" in "$pkgdir" on the line where you call chown.

kkl2401 commented on 2014-08-21 19:59

Updated to 8.20.

stativ: I'd really like to avoid letting makepkg extract the archive because it takes a while to extract it, then it takes a while to copy it from src to pkg and then it takes a while to compress it again. This way I can skip one of these steps.
But you're absolutely right about the ownership. I have no idea how that happens. When I look inside the pkg directory, I see nothing like that there, I also have no user with id 10 and no group with id 143 on my system. I thought running chown -R root:root would help but apparently not (I don't have much experience with fakeroot). Do you know how to fix this (ideally without getting rid of noextract)?

stativ commented on 2014-06-03 10:23

I have some suggestions:
* you should make sure that the files has some sane ownership, eg. root:root. Currently it is 10:143
* please let makepkg to extract the zip, because with the development version of makepkg that I'm using the build fails because if noextract is used, the symlink to sources is not created. You can take a look at eg. jdk7-docs.

kkl2401 commented on 2014-04-27 18:47


rdjack21 commented on 2014-04-26 04:12

Thanks for this package but I would think that you should install this in /usr/share/doc/java8 instead of /usr/share/doc/java

kkl2401 commented on 2014-04-16 16:33


kkl2401 commented on 2014-03-19 00:13


kkl2401 commented on 2014-01-20 12:32


kkl2401 commented on 2013-12-28 11:50


ilpianista commented on 2013-12-28 08:50

Please install a copy of 'Java SE Development Kit 7 Documentation License Agreement' on the system.

kkl2401 commented on 2013-10-16 15:27


kkl2401 commented on 2013-10-13 19:34


kkl2401 commented on 2013-06-23 21:31


kkl2401 commented on 2013-04-25 01:21


kkl2401 commented on 2013-03-08 00:59


igordcard commented on 2013-03-04 23:37

Update 17 is out...

kkl2401 commented on 2013-01-14 07:24

Version bump.

kkl2401 commented on 2012-08-18 04:43

Version bump.

kkl2401 commented on 2012-08-04 19:00

This is still the newest version I see at, so I'm unflagging it.

student975 commented on 2011-10-16 17:20

This way we have the same package twice:

Probably regarding jdk-docs it will be handy for users to have the same scheme as for Oracle jdk itself. We have jdk6 (last java 6) and jdk (last Orcacle jdk, in fact - last java 7 now) packages. I guess it is expected to have the same scheme for docs also.

I see all these coordination demands time from maintainers. Please, don't treat my message as any kind of claim - it's just opinion.

kkl2401 commented on 2011-10-16 17:09

Well, it was never my intention to maintain API documentation specifically for Java 6. Since the package is called jdk-docs, it should obviously contain documentation for the newest version. If anyone is interested, they can create jdk6-docs but it won't be me at the moment because right now I have no need for that.

student975 commented on 2011-10-16 16:21

AUR contains jdk7-docs already. How can we have docs for Oracle jdk 6 now?

kkl2401 commented on 2011-10-16 16:11