Package Details: jre 18.0.1.1-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/jdk.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: jdk
Description: Oracle Java Runtime Environment
Upstream URL: https://www.oracle.com/java/
Licenses: custom
Provides: java-runtime, java-runtime-headless, java-runtime-headless-jdk, java-runtime-jdk18, jre18-jdk, jre18-jdk-headless
Submitter: td123
Maintainer: dbermond
Last Packager: dbermond
Votes: 1099
Popularity: 1.09
First Submitted: 2011-08-27 17:56 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-06-05 12:09 (UTC)

Required by (1446)

Sources (9)

Latest Comments

hugegameartgd commented on 2022-05-06 22:43 (UTC) (edited on 2022-05-06 22:44 (UTC) by hugegameartgd)

Maybe upgrading would work with provides = jre18-jdk=18.0.1 instead of 18.0.1-1 in .SRCINFO?

dbermond commented on 2022-05-05 20:38 (UTC)

@MidnightStarSign Sorry, but distributions other than Arch Linux are not supported here. Please seek help on your distribution support channels.

MidnightStarSign commented on 2022-05-05 19:30 (UTC)

I'm encountering an issue where I upgrade this using pamac, but the update is still available despite it being successful.

I found this from another forum regarding the issue: "The maintainer changed the package versioning pattern and did not adopt .SRCINFO, hence AUR helpers interpret that in a way that there is a new update available although there isn’t".

Not sure if that is what's going on here.

Full:

Checking keyring...                                                                                  [1/1]
Checking integrity...                                                                                [1/1]
Loading package files...                                                                             [1/1]
Checking file conflicts...                                                                           [1/1]
Checking available disc space...                                                                     [1/1]
Reinstalling jre (17.0.1-1)...                                                                       [1/1]
Transaction successfully finished.

dbermond commented on 2022-03-24 13:51 (UTC)

For users wanting the Oracle Java LTS release, there are now lts packages for convenience: jdk-lts, jre-lts and jdk-lts-doc.

dimich commented on 2022-01-20 15:40 (UTC) (edited on 2022-01-20 16:59 (UTC) by dimich)

UPD: Hm, nevermind. Now downloaded successfully without any changes. Maybe some malfunction of the server.

Seems Oracle doesn't allow to download jdk-14.0.2_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz directly from script any more:

Sorry!
In order to download products from Oracle Technology Network you must agree to the OTN license terms.
Be sure that...
Your browser has "cookies" and JavaScript enabled.
You clicked on "Accept License" for the product you wish to download.
You attempt the download within 30 minutes of accepting the license.

drslmr commented on 2021-11-22 14:00 (UTC)

Update to my last comment:

My issue was, that I get this "undefined symbol: ipv6_available" when executing jar and other jdk executables.

Now I see that un-setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH in the bash shell fixes the problem too.

I tried to find who (which service/program) sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH, in my case to /usr/lib:/usr/lib:/usr/lib:/usr/lib, but I could not find it, neither in my user resource file nor in the system resource files I know off.

drslmr commented on 2021-11-12 09:20 (UTC)

I found how to work around: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/eclipse-java/#news

I needed to add the server path to the LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

drslmr commented on 2021-10-18 11:34 (UTC)

Hi,

I "undefined symbol: ipv6_available" when starting jar or java using a jar. I tried with version 16 but no difference. I also posted the issue here:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=270512

dbermond commented on 2021-05-14 15:43 (UTC)

@skerit I have no such issue. Installing with makepkg -i works fine for me, and also with pacman -U.

skerit commented on 2021-05-14 15:36 (UTC)

Installing jre or jdk results in some kind of infinite loop of trying to install the other package (jre wants to install jdk, jdk wants to install jre, ...)

AbdulrahmanRoshd commented on 2021-04-22 13:35 (UTC) (edited on 2021-04-23 09:27 (UTC) by AbdulrahmanRoshd) 

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/16+36/7863447f0ab643c585b9bdebf67c69db/jdk-16_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz
    Aborting...

dbermond commented on 2021-01-23 11:06 (UTC)

@Weenut Package updated.

Weenut commented on 2021-01-22 02:40 (UTC)

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/15.0.1+9/51f4f36ad4ef43e39d0dfdbaf6549e32/jdk-15.0.1_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz

you need to change where you download java from because this just doesn't work

cuevaskoch commented on 2020-11-03 03:41 (UTC)

It's working for me now. My apologies, something was probably wrong with my setup. Thanks again!

dbermond commented on 2020-11-03 02:11 (UTC)

@cuevaskoch The source fine is downloading fine with makepkg. No 404.

cuevaskoch commented on 2020-11-02 06:00 (UTC) (edited on 2020-11-02 06:00 (UTC) by cuevaskoch)

Thank you for all your work maintaining this package. I believe the upstream might have updated yet again because the 404s are back

dbermond commented on 2020-10-22 21:45 (UTC)

@caodien That's because the software was updated by upstream and the old source file is not available anymore. I've updated the package to the current upstream version and it's building fine.

caodien commented on 2020-10-22 21:22 (UTC)

I'm having similar problems to @xzu downloading the source:

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/15+36/779bf45e88a44cbd9ea6621d33e33db1/jdk-15_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz
    Aborting...
error downloading sources: jdk (jre jdk)

dbermond commented on 2020-09-17 20:24 (UTC)

@muncrief The source file is downloading without any problems and the package is building fine.

licensed commented on 2020-06-20 20:23 (UTC)

I had this problem to build jre and jdk. I had tried pinned comment, but not success, got same error (brokes dependencies)

so, @rafaelff gave me an suggestion to solve problem:

pacman -Rdd jre jdk
yay jre
yay jdk

dbermond commented on 2020-04-22 16:20 (UTC)

Package updated.

Det commented on 2020-04-22 14:07 (UTC) (edited on 2020-04-22 14:08 (UTC) by Det)

@xzu, ye new version, my Finnish mate (curl -fLC - --retry 3 --retry-delay 3 -b oraclelicense=a -O https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/14.0.1+7/664493ef4a6946b186ff29eb326336a2/jdk-14.0.1_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz works).

xzu commented on 2020-04-22 11:01 (UTC)

Package can't be installed since download url returns 404.

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found [130] ==> VIRHE: Tiedostoa https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/14+36/076bab302c7b4508975440c56f6cc26a/jdk-14_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz ladattaessa tapahtui virhe Peruutetaan... Error downloading sources: jre

dbermond commented on 2020-03-20 17:14 (UTC)

@hugegameartgd jre does not need to be removed for upgrading. Please read the pinned comment.

hugegameartgd commented on 2020-03-20 14:07 (UTC)

jdk needs to be removed and installed again when upgrading because of jre<14 and jre>=15 dependency of jdk.

yodaembedding commented on 2019-10-12 13:31 (UTC) (edited on 2020-08-23 23:33 (UTC) by yodaembedding)

Here's a oneliner for those who have trouble installing:

mkdir -p /tmp/btw-i-use-jdk && cd /tmp/btw-i-use-jdk && git clone 'https://aur.archlinux.org/jre.git' && git clone 'https://aur.archlinux.org/jdk.git' && cd jre && makepkg && cd ../jdk && makepkg -d && cd .. && sudo pacman -U jre/jre-*.pkg* jdk/jdk-*.pkg*

cuevaskoch commented on 2019-09-27 18:03 (UTC)

Here's the script I used for updating this on my various workstations, in case it helps anybody else.

#!/bin/bash
​
YAY_CACHE=$HOME/.cache/yay
​
cd $YAY_CACHE/jre
git latest
makepkg
​
cd $YAY_CACHE/jdk
git latest
makepkg -d
​
cd $YAY_CACHE
sudo pacman -U ./jdk/jdk-13-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz ./jre/jre-13-2-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz

MrArgoNavis commented on 2019-09-22 05:59 (UTC)

I think that there shouldn't be that kind of version constraint.

With every single install, I am forced to uninstall previous version of Java 8+ (such as Java 10, 11, 12...) but as far as I can tell, Arch is perfectly capable of handling multiple versions of Java in parallel.

dbermond commented on 2019-09-20 17:16 (UTC)

@Trja17 Please see pinned comment on package jre.

Trja17 commented on 2019-09-20 15:35 (UTC)

Could not satisfy dependencies: installing jre (13-2) breaks dependency 'jre<13' required by jdk

dbermond commented on 2019-09-19 20:28 (UTC)

@xuanruiqi @deconf Upstream changed the source file without notice. Checksum of the current source file is now updated.

dbermond commented on 2019-09-19 20:27 (UTC)

@xuanruiqi @zor1984qq @cytodev @zrhoffman Upstream changed the source file without notice. Checksum of the current source file is now updated.

cytodev commented on 2019-09-19 18:01 (UTC)

Heads up to everyone trying to upgrade the package; the PKGBUILD contains an invalid SHA256 checksum. The correct one can be found here: https://www.oracle.com/webfolder/s/digest/13checksum.html

zrhoffman commented on 2019-09-19 15:04 (UTC)

jdk-13_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz has a SHA-256 of 095fe9ee73bfa8d594b6bf63ae8c750144670a676ba4331ffd2d06b5ae4d5af1.

[zrhoffman@computer jre]$ makepkg
==> Making package: jre 13-1 (Thu 19 Sep 2019 09:58:57 AM CDT)
==> Checking runtime dependencies...
==> Checking buildtime dependencies...
==> Retrieving sources...
  -> Found jdk-13_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz
==> Validating source files with sha256sums...
    jdk-13_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

zor1984qq commented on 2019-09-19 09:03 (UTC) (edited on 2019-09-19 09:39 (UTC) by zor1984qq)

Yes. How to fix checksum problem? Well I just enabled editing in yay AUR wrapper and edit sha256 checksumm to 095fe9ee73bfa8d594b6bf63ae8c750144670a676ba4331ffd2d06b5ae4d5af1

to enable editing in yay: https://github.com/Jguer/yay

Yay is not asking me to edit PKGBUILDS, and I don't like the diff menu! What can I do?

yay --editmenu --nodiffmenu --save

Thats it. You can calculate sha256checksum with the same name following utility if it changes once more.

And archlinux-java status or archlinux-java get to check it. I have defaulted to 13 after package installation.

deconf commented on 2019-09-19 08:39 (UTC)

Please upgrade the checksum. updpkgsums

xuanruiqi commented on 2019-09-19 04:15 (UTC)

The checksum seems out of date?

xuanruiqi commented on 2019-09-19 04:14 (UTC)

The checksum seems out of date?

mqs commented on 2019-07-21 16:12 (UTC)

The checksums don't seem to fit (sha256 also fails the same way)

$ makepkg --verifysource 
==> Making package: jdk-docs 12.0.2-1 (So 21 Jul 2019 18:07:04 CEST)
==> Retrieving sources...
  -> Found jdk-12.0.2_doc-all.zip
  -> Found LICENSE-Oracle-Legal-Notices.txt
==> Validating source files with md5sums...
    jdk-12.0.2_doc-all.zip ... Passed
    LICENSE-Oracle-Legal-Notices.txt ... FAILED
==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

dbermond commented on 2019-06-16 11:58 (UTC)

@ForeverZer0 Yes it's possible. You need to set a directory path in the SRCDEST variable in your makepkg.conf file. All the sources downloaded by makepkg will be placed in this directory, avoiding duplicate download of sources:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Makepkg#Package_output

https://www.archlinux.org/pacman/makepkg.conf.5.html#_options

It's also possible to specify a SCRDEST environment variable which overrides the one defined in makepkg.conf:

https://www.archlinux.org/pacman/makepkg.8.html#_environment_variables

ForeverZer0 commented on 2019-06-16 06:09 (UTC)

Just a quick question, was installing this and watching the log, and it appeared to be downloading "jdk-12.0.1_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz" twice, once for the jre, and the other for the jdk.

Would it be possible to re-use the same file to avoid the duplicate 181M download?

dalu commented on 2019-04-23 09:26 (UTC) (edited on 2019-04-23 09:34 (UTC) by dalu)

circular dependency

==> jdk dependencies:
 - java-environment-common (already installed)
 - jre<13 (already installed)
 - zlib (already installed)
 - hicolor-icon-theme (already installed)
 - jre>=12 (building from AUR)

however

sudo pacman -U /tmp/yaourt-tmp-darko/jre-12.0.1-1-x86_64.pkg.tar
loading packages...
resolving dependencies...
looking for conflicting packages...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: installing jre (12.0.1-1) breaks dependency 'jre<12' required by jdk

I see that has been answered. "Build jre normally with makepkg, then build jdk with makepkg -d, and then install both with pacman -U"

Still it's an unelegant solution and the issue re-appears every time.

jeroenr commented on 2019-04-23 09:18 (UTC)

Is everybody aware that the Oracle version of the JDK/JRE can not be used for free in a server environment? See https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/oracle-jdk-faqs.html For a free to use version, jdk.java.net should be used.

Quote: "For what uses is Oracle Java SE, including Java 8 updates, free? For full information and terms, refer to the OTN License Agreement for Java SE. The OTN License Agreement for Java SE for current Oracle Java SE releases allows them to be used, without cost: (i) For personal use on a desktop or laptop computer, such as to play games or run other personal applications. (ii) For development, testing, prototyping, and demonstrating applications, including to use by/with profilers, debuggers, and Integrated Development Environment tools. (iii) For use with some approved products, such as Oracle SQL Developer, or as an end user of a software application created by an approved product. (referred to as “Schedule A” and “Schedule B” Products in the OTN License Agreement for Java SE) (iv) With identified Oracle Cloud Infrastructure products."

And: "Where can I get the latest releases of Java SE at no cost on or after April 16, 2019? Oracle provides the latest Java releases, made available in March and September each year, including quarterly performance, stability and security updates (in January, April, July and October) under an open source license at jdk.java.net. Also, Oracle provides updates; including Java 8, Java 11, and Java 12 of Oracle Java SE under the OTN License Agreement for Java SE at OTN. "

dbermond commented on 2019-04-19 15:35 (UTC)

@eientei95 package updated.

dbermond commented on 2019-04-19 15:35 (UTC)

@eientei95 package updated.

dbermond commented on 2019-04-19 15:35 (UTC)

Package updated guys.

phil330d commented on 2019-04-18 00:26 (UTC)

same error as makaay

makaay commented on 2019-04-17 12:23 (UTC)

The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/12+33/312335d836a34c7c8bba9d963e26dc23/jdk-12_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz Aborting...

eientei95 commented on 2019-04-16 20:15 (UTC)

Getting a 404 for https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/12+33/312335d836a34c7c8bba9d963e26dc23/jdk-12_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz, redirects to https://download.oracle.com/errors/download-fail-1505220.html "In order to download products from Oracle Technology Network you must agree to the OTN license terms."

They check for the s_sq cookie that's set via JS

damonh commented on 2019-04-04 22:56 (UTC)

I get this error when trying to update: installing jre (12-1) breaks dependency 'jre<12' required by jdk

gonciarz commented on 2019-04-03 11:06 (UTC)

@vibhas77: please check if your jdk's package source is updated. The latest version requires: jre>=12 and jre<13

vibhas77 commented on 2019-04-03 06:38 (UTC)

Not updating. Getting error for both jdk and jre :

Installing jre (12-1) breaks dependency 'jre<12' required by jdk.

dbermond commented on 2019-04-02 23:37 (UTC)

@philad Please see the answer at jre aur page.

philad commented on 2019-04-01 07:40 (UTC)

Upgrading JDK brings me to the following problem. When trying to install JRE he tells me that the current JDK requires JDK<12 while installing JDK the answer is that JRE must be JRE>=12.

Fehler: Konnte den Vorgang nicht vorbereiten (Kann Abhängigkeiten nicht erfüllen) :: Installation vonjre (12-1) verletzt Abhängigkeit 'jre<12', benötigt von jdk :: Erstelle jdk-Paket(e)... ==> Erstelle Paket: jdk 12-1 (Mo 01 Apr 2019 09:17:44 CEST) ==> Prüfe Laufzeit-Abhängigkeiten... ==> Installiere fehlende Abhängigkeiten... Fehler: Ziel nicht gefunden: jre>=12 ==> FEHLER: 'pacman' konnte fehlende Abhängigkeiten nicht installieren. :: Konnte jdk-Paket(e) nicht erstellen

dbermond commented on 2019-03-29 01:05 (UTC)

@archer_linux Build jre normally with makepkg, then build jdk with makepkg -d, and then install both with pacman -U. Or you can build each one in a chroot and then install both with pacman -U.

archer_linux commented on 2019-03-28 16:09 (UTC)

Hello, I can't update my Java Packages. I guess the fault is that both jre and jdk are linked to the exact same source. Can anybody confirm this?

Regards, Thorsten

lordchaos commented on 2019-03-26 14:11 (UTC)

I'm trying to use this version with the latest SQLDeveloper, but it doesn't seem to work?

Error: /usr/lib/jvm/default/bin/java not found or not a valid JDK

x1carbon6 :: /opt/sqldeveloper » /usr/lib/jvm/default/bin/java -version java version "11.0.2" 2019-01-15 LTS Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment 18.9 (build 11.0.2+9-LTS) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM 18.9 (build 11.0.2+9-LTS, mixed mode)

Det commented on 2019-03-18 09:32 (UTC)

Nice homepage.

gonciarz commented on 2019-03-18 08:39 (UTC)

Just a reminder, tomorrow JDK 12 will be released. Thanks for your effort.

semenoveg commented on 2019-03-01 06:51 (UTC) (edited on 2019-03-05 06:35 (UTC) by semenoveg)

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=jdk&id=a19ae6a2f602
This change added depends of jre. I get file conflicts when yaourt try to install jre as depend:

....
jre: /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk/lib/server/libjvm.so exists in filesystem (owned by jdk)
jre: /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk/lib/tzdb.dat exists in filesystem (owned by jdk)
jre: /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk/release exists in filesystem (owned by jdk)
....
and many other files

UPD: problem was fixed by reinstalling jdk.

onizuka_79 commented on 2019-01-21 16:54 (UTC) (edited on 2019-01-21 17:09 (UTC) by onizuka_79)

Hello PFM. You can edit the PKGBUILD and change the download URL by yourself with the following link : https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/11.0.2+9/f51449fcd52f4d52b93a989c5c56ed3c/jdk-11.0.2_solaris-sparcv9_bin.tar.gz

don't forget to change to change sha256sums also 52b7f4298af04bc3079b73c071b85db87a4509ea6110b752e941b5cb360ef181 :)

AND change pkgver=11.0.1 to 11.0.2

StuckUpCreations commented on 2019-01-19 19:10 (UTC)

would be great to have the updated package of jdk, as its flagged out of date now..

pfm commented on 2019-01-16 09:22 (UTC)

Download from Oracle server fails:

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading https://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/11.0.1+13/90cf5d8f270a4347a95050320eef3fb7/jdk-11.0.1_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz Aborting... ==> ERROR: Could not download sources.

Please adjust the download link.

rellieberman commented on 2019-01-08 19:02 (UTC)

Java web start has been deprecated since JDK 11

https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/11-relnote-issues-5012449.html

you can try to use icedtea-web package from the office repo: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/icedtea-web/

or alternatively install an older version of jre.

mtorromeo commented on 2019-01-08 17:59 (UTC)

It seems javaws is now missing from the package

nostalgix commented on 2019-01-08 09:32 (UTC)

I get lots of warnings like this: warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk/bin/java

Seems lots of files are not properly installed or get deleted at some point?

jfcandidofilho commented on 2018-12-23 16:00 (UTC)

@Det thanks for supporting us this far!

dbermond commented on 2018-12-22 10:30 (UTC)

@NinjaKoala Fixed.

NinjaKoala commented on 2018-12-17 11:34 (UTC)

This package has a conflicting file with extra/jdk7-openjdk: jdk: /usr/share/applications/jconsole.desktop exists in filesystem (owned by jdk7-openjdk)

dbermond commented on 2018-12-12 15:33 (UTC)

@proft The runtime environment is now at package jre, which is a dependency. Uninstall jdk first and it will work.

proft commented on 2018-12-12 15:30 (UTC)

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) jre: /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk/bin/java exists in filesystem (owned by jdk) jre: /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk/bin/jjs exists in filesystem (owned by jdk) jre: /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk/bin/jrunscript exists in filesystem (owned by jdk)

rafaelff commented on 2018-12-09 16:43 (UTC) (edited on 2018-12-09 16:43 (UTC) by rafaelff)

namcap reports:

      PKGBUILD (jre) E: File referenced in $startdir

archimede commented on 2018-11-26 01:22 (UTC)

makepkg fails with this error:

install: cannot stat '/mnt/hdd/wd/repos/aur/jre/src/policytool-jre8.desktop': No such file or directory ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().

That file exists in src, but it is a simlink file and the target file of the simlink does not exists.

Det commented on 2018-11-24 12:37 (UTC)

Good-bye, friends.

I've left Arch a long time ago, and now I'm leaving these too.

To you.

Det commented on 2018-10-21 12:52 (UTC)

Had to switch mirrors. cacbedfd08e4

Muflone commented on 2018-10-20 19:05 (UTC)

Cannot download sources

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found
==> ERROR: Failure while downloading <http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/10.0.2+13/19aef61b38124481863b1413dce1855f/jre-10.0.2_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz>
    Aborting...
==> ERROR: Could not download sources.

Det commented on 2018-09-28 06:35 (UTC)

I didn't see it.

Someone can pacman -Ql jdk | grep jcontrol.

grawity commented on 2018-09-28 04:39 (UTC)

Just checking – does Java 11 no longer have the jcontrol control panel? (I think that's how I used to have to add custom CA certificates in the past.)

Det commented on 2018-09-27 18:56 (UTC) (edited on 2018-09-28 14:17 (UTC) by Det)

Well... yeah.

They mention it (the new license) with a big yellow note in the Downloads page: https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jdk11-downloads-5066655.html

I could add an .install note, if people really use Arch Linux for Java production..

E: I mean, people are familiar with Google v. Oracle, right? Reading the new license, I didn't know this was anything new even.

severach commented on 2018-09-27 18:53 (UTC)

Oracle's Java 11 trap

Det commented on 2018-09-27 18:50 (UTC)

Yeah. The new JavaFX is apparently: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3305073/java/removed-from-jdk-11-javafx-11-arrives-as-a-standalone-module.html → https://openjfx.io/ → https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?sort=&arch=x86_64&q=openjfx&maintainer=&flagged= (8.u172-2)

apemanzilla commented on 2018-09-27 18:38 (UTC)

JDK 11 no longer includes JavaFX, could the PKGBUILD be updated to reflect this?

Det commented on 2018-09-27 14:49 (UTC)

Okay.

Det commented on 2018-09-27 14:48 (UTC)

Whoops wth. Fixing that.

Det commented on 2018-09-27 14:44 (UTC) (edited on 2018-09-27 14:44 (UTC) by Det)

0 ✓ 17:43:40 /cygdrive/c/Users/Det/Desktop
$ sha256sum.exe jdk-11_doc-all.zip
97324a58359883a57e5352983b06ab1deedf945df77ad1275afa9795e56c2048 *jdk-11_doc-all.zip

Can't repro.

Det commented on 2018-09-27 11:56 (UTC)

archlinux-java*.

SciBoy commented on 2018-09-27 09:59 (UTC) (edited on 2018-09-27 10:07 (UTC) by SciBoy)

What I noticed was that the new version was about 280Mb smaller than the previous version after install. So maybe something just didn't get included into the install package.

No, that wasn't it. I installed it again and now it worked. Go figure. Twice I tried before, no success. But I should have tried with archlinux-configure, I guess. I just assumed all that would work out of the box.

Det commented on 2018-09-27 08:07 (UTC)

That does make zero sense. The .install automatically runs archlinux-java fix.

Unless you're on Manjaro, in which case you shouldn't be here anyway.

SciBoy commented on 2018-09-27 06:57 (UTC) (edited on 2018-09-27 06:59 (UTC) by SciBoy)

If I install this, I end up without java command. I cannot start any java applications and I cannot compile anything. I don't have time to investigate what the problem is right now (I'm at work) so I uninstalled it and went back to open-jdk 8 (which was already installed) which solved my problem.

gonciarz commented on 2018-09-26 19:25 (UTC)

@Det: Thank you for a very quick update, and sorry for unnecessary comments. To be honest I haven't used out-of-date flag before.

Det commented on 2018-09-26 17:39 (UTC)

Ok.

Works now.

grawity commented on 2018-09-26 17:04 (UTC) 

==> Starting package()...
  -> Creating directory structure...
  -> Moving contents...
/usr/bin/mv: target '/home/grawity/.cache/pacaur/jdk/pkg/jdk//usr/lib/jvm/java-11-jdk' is not a directory
==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package().

The directory $pkgdir/usr/lib/jvm/ instead has a subdirectory java-11- with apparently missing suffix.

Det commented on 2018-09-26 16:40 (UTC) (edited on 2018-09-26 16:41 (UTC) by Det)

Yeah that doesn't help at all.

semeion commented on 2018-09-26 16:40 (UTC)

It is broken for me

Det commented on 2018-09-26 16:28 (UTC)

Aaaaand.. now?

Det commented on 2018-09-26 16:20 (UTC)

Fak.

carbolymer commented on 2018-09-26 16:19 (UTC)

Appears to be broken:

rm: cannot remove 'lib/desktop/icons/HighContrast': No such file or directory

Det commented on 2018-09-26 16:03 (UTC) (edited on 2018-09-26 16:04 (UTC) by Det)

For Java 11, switch to JDK: https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/11-relnote-issues-5012449.html

In this release, the JRE or Server JRE is no longer offered. Only the JDK is offered. Users can use jlink to create smaller custom runtimes.

Det commented on 2018-09-26 15:42 (UTC)

redg3ar flagged jre out-of-date on 2018-09-25 for the following reason:

https://www.infoq.com/news/2018/09/java11-released

There's no JRE 11 for Java.

Det commented on 2018-09-26 12:42 (UTC)

Yeah that's why it's flagged as such (click on the red text).

Maintainers (including co-) automatically get notifications from flags, even if not subscribed to comments.

gonciarz commented on 2018-09-26 11:56 (UTC)

JDK11 is already available.

Det commented on 2018-07-18 14:27 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, fixed.

nslxndr commented on 2018-07-18 12:59 (UTC) (edited on 2018-07-18 12:59 (UTC) by nslxndr)

==> Validating source files with sha256sums... jdk-10.0.2_doc-all.zip ... FAILED LICENSE-Oracle-Legal-Notices.txt ... Passed ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

rellieberman commented on 2018-07-15 21:49 (UTC) (edited on 2018-07-15 21:53 (UTC) by rellieberman)

There is an issue using java webstart from this package when icedtea-web is installed, as both provide javaws. javaws from this package is added and removed from PATH via archlinux-java, while icedtea-web installs itself to /bin and becomes the default. Even when selecting java-10-jre/jre as default, javaws launches icedtea and no jre10's java webstart.

Det commented on 2018-04-17 18:07 (UTC)

Sort of seems like your $startdir has old files in it.

grinderz commented on 2018-04-17 12:53 (UTC) (edited on 2018-04-17 12:56 (UTC) by grinderz)

'/usr/lib/jvm/java-${VERSION}-jre/jre' is not a valid Java environment path

:: archlinux-java: JRE ('java-${VERSION}-jre/jre') set as default Java environment.

bash: java: command not found

correct is

$ archlinux-java set java-10-jre/jre

Det commented on 2018-04-14 18:20 (UTC) (edited on 2018-04-14 18:22 (UTC) by Det)

There won't be a JRE 11, since the JDK directory structure was simplified in Java 9 (jre/ merged with rest of JDK, etc.), and a separate product seems to have become obsolete: http://jdk.java.net/11/ (first Note).

Det commented on 2018-04-01 18:29 (UTC)

No need to really post the link on all my packages. I get a notification each time.

pschichtel commented on 2018-04-01 18:26 (UTC)

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/58057

Det commented on 2018-03-27 19:32 (UTC)

JDK & JRE go side by side again, by the way. Might not make sense, but it's an option.

prertik commented on 2018-03-25 10:22 (UTC)

Nice. The link is up now. Sorry for the flag. I thought the they had moved the URL.

Det commented on 2018-03-24 11:30 (UTC)

Downloads are down: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre10-downloads-4417026.html

Don't flag.

Det commented on 2018-03-24 06:37 (UTC)

prekar flagged jdk out-of-date on 2018-03-24 for the following reason:

ERROR: Failure while downloading http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/10+46/76eac37278c24557a3c4199677f19b62/jdk-10_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz

Don't flag, the link is down: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jdk10-downloads-4416644.html

Det commented on 2018-03-23 13:13 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that that doen't require a version bump lol.

The next one just came.

donpicoro commented on 2018-03-23 12:48 (UTC)

Hi,

no need to do a version bump but for the next one you might want to modify the REALLY USEFUL warning in the .install file. Now the file is:

/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libnpjp2-jre10.so instead of /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libnpjp2-jre9.so

Cheers,

/Pico

Det commented on 2018-03-14 16:27 (UTC)

Yeah they removed it apparently. It's not a part of it at all: https://visualvm.github.io/download.html

klingt.net commented on 2018-03-14 15:30 (UTC)

The jvisualvm-jdk9.desktop file is broken because it refers to /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-jdk/bin/jvisualvm which is not part of the package.

Det commented on 2018-01-17 13:04 (UTC)

Yeah, just flag, don't post a comment about it.

mister commented on 2018-01-17 11:31 (UTC) (edited on 2018-01-17 11:47 (UTC) by mister)

seems like the java package was moved to another url:

==> ERROR: Failure while downloading http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/9.0.1+11/jdk-9.0.1_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz Aborting...

Its also been updated to 9.0.4

lfleischer commented on 2017-11-07 07:51 (UTC)

Great, thanks!

Det commented on 2017-11-07 07:50 (UTC)

well that's reverted ^^ https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/PKGBUILD?h=jdk&id=b98da7f6af11a6c42c607c42839405f70b2a9c08

lfleischer commented on 2017-11-07 07:46 (UTC)

The goal of a mature AUR package maintainer should always be to provide packages of the highest quality possible; this applies even more so to popular packages with serveal hundreds of votes. I'd rather avoid making top AUR packages a playground for social experiments/games.

Det commented on 2017-11-07 07:42 (UTC) (edited on 2017-11-07 07:44 (UTC) by Det)

it's just one if clause i want a victim to fall on ^^ E: altho, the Zeal/GoldenDict bug wasn't indeed non-Arch specific so...

lfleischer commented on 2017-11-07 07:40 (UTC)

Why not? What's the point of cluttering the build script with such a check?

Det commented on 2017-11-07 07:36 (UTC)

not yet

lfleischer commented on 2017-11-07 07:36 (UTC)

Could you please revert any "cosmetic" changes cluttering the PKGBUILD and seemingly having no purpose apart from confusing a certain user group?

Det commented on 2017-11-05 00:33 (UTC)

Repro'd. Added a warning in .install for now, as happens even when set as default Java.

Det commented on 2017-11-03 12:23 (UTC)

Kind of a tough one to fix when I don't have no power over what archlinux-java does to the /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ symlink. It's a separate package for OpenJDK (icedtea-web). Does it not crash with icedtea-web and OpenJDK? Is this not just Manjaro-specific?

ivanruvalcaba commented on 2017-11-03 03:59 (UTC)

Hi! There is an issue with your package and qt5-webkit, see below: https://github.com/zealdocs/zeal/issues/802#issuecomment-340547528 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=231222 This fix the issue: https://github.com/zealdocs/zeal/issues/802#issuecomment-340677973 Best regards.

bouni commented on 2017-10-17 19:26 (UTC)

Seems that the URL is no longer valid: curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/9+181/jre-9_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz Aborting... ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jre I tried to change the vars that build the URL in the pkgbuid but it still fails on a later point. The current URl is: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/9.0.1+11/jdk-9.0.1_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz

Det commented on 2017-10-07 13:30 (UTC)

'xed.

Vico commented on 2017-10-07 01:58 (UTC)

Bug in script: "# Link missing icons", debug output: -> i: lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/sun-jcontrol-jre9.png -> ln -s sun-jcontrol-jre9.png lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/sun-java-jre9.png -> ln -s sun-jcontrol-jre9.png lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/sun-javaws-jre9.png -> i: lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-java-jnlp-file-jre9.png -> ln -s sun-jcontrol-jre9.png lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-java-jnlp-file-jre9.png ln: failed to create symbolic link 'lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-java-jnlp-file-jre9.png': File exists

raqua commented on 2017-10-06 22:00 (UTC)

Fixed it with this quick and dirty fix: <SNIP> msg2 "Fixing directory structure..." # Suffix .desktops + icon (sun-jcontrol.png -> sun-jcontrol-$_jname.png) for i in $(find lib/desktop/ -type f); do echo $i rename -- "." "-$_jname." $i done rm -f lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes/* rm -f lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/16x16/mimetypes/* # Link missing icons for i in $(find lib/desktop/icons/ -name "*-$_jname.png" -type f); do echo "sun-jcontrol-$_jname.png -> ${i/jcontrol/java}" ln -s "sun-jcontrol-$_jname.png" "${i/jcontrol/java}" echo "sun-jcontrol-$_jname.png -> ${i/jcontrol/javaws}" ln -s "sun-jcontrol-$_jname.png" "${i/jcontrol/javaws}" done <SNIP> There are existing files which the script tries to recreate by symlinking.

raqua commented on 2017-10-06 21:58 (UTC)

Building and installing package ==> Making package: jdk 9u0-1 (Fri Oct 6 23:56:02 CEST 2017) ==> Checking runtime dependencies... ==> Checking buildtime dependencies... ==> Retrieving sources... -> Downloading jdk-9_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz... % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 100 465 100 465 0 0 465 0 0:00:01 --:--:-- 0:00:01 2447 100 330M 100 330M 0 0 11.7M 0 0:00:28 0:00:28 --:--:-- 9092k -> Found jconsole-jdk9.desktop -> Found jmc-jdk9.desktop -> Found jvisualvm-jdk9.desktop -> Found policytool-jdk9.desktop ==> Validating source files with sha256sums... jdk-9_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz ... Passed jconsole-jdk9.desktop ... Passed jmc-jdk9.desktop ... Passed jvisualvm-jdk9.desktop ... Passed policytool-jdk9.desktop ... Passed ==> Extracting sources... -> Extracting jdk-9_linux-x64_bin.tar.gz with bsdtar ==> Entering fakeroot environment... ==> Starting package()... -> Creating directory structure... -> Removing redundancies... -> Moving contents... -> Fixing directory structure... ln: failed to create symbolic link 'lib/desktop/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-java-jnlp-file-jdk9.png': File exists ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package(). Aborting... ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jdk. ==> Restart building jdk ? [y/N] ==> ---------------------------- ==> It fails during image creation with file conflicts. Probably source changed?

sl1pkn07 commented on 2017-10-06 17:03 (UTC)

seems sun-java-jdk9.desktop and sun-javaws-jdk9.desktop have missing icon files https://sl1pkn07.wtf/paste/view/raw/bd5786c7 greetings

Det commented on 2017-10-03 22:39 (UTC) (edited on 2017-10-03 22:39 (UTC) by Det)

The two started conflicting for sharing the same major version. I added the conflicts=(), but you'll have to manually rebuild (remove) either one.

kingcreole commented on 2017-10-03 22:23 (UTC)

hey, since upgrading to jdk 9 i get tons of those errors: file owned by 'jre' and 'jre-devel': 'usr/share/mime/packages/x-java-jnlp-file-jre9.xml' whenever i try to install or update anything from aur that uses Java in some way. what should i do? Android, Skype, the prusa slicer, enigmail, gitkraken, everything is unable to install or upgrade

Det commented on 2017-09-25 05:28 (UTC) (edited on 2017-09-25 05:29 (UTC) by Det)

$ pacman -Qo /etc/java-jdk9/fontconfig.properties.src /etc/java-jdk9/logging.properties .... Override with pacman -U --force.

tsdh commented on 2017-09-25 05:08 (UTC)

I can't install (or rather update) the package. ==> Finished making: jdk 9u0-1 (Mon Sep 25 07:04:59 CEST 2017) loading packages... resolving dependencies... looking for conflicting packages... Packages (1) jdk-9u0-1 Total Installed Size: 542.17 MiB Net Upgrade Size: 184.84 MiB :: Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y (1/1) checking keys in keyring [######################] 100% (1/1) checking package integrity [######################] 100% (1/1) loading package files [######################] 100% (1/1) checking for file conflicts [######################] 100% error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/fontconfig.properties.src exists in filesystem jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/logging.properties exists in filesystem jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/management/jmxremote.access exists in filesystem jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/management/jmxremote.password.template exists in filesystem jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/management/management.properties exists in filesystem jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/management/snmp.acl.template exists in filesystem jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/net.properties exists in filesystem jdk: /etc/java-jdk9/psfont.properties.ja exists in filesystem ...

Det commented on 2017-09-23 19:25 (UTC)

No, 181 is the build number.

coderkun commented on 2017-09-23 19:22 (UTC)

Shoudn’t be the version 9.u181?

Det commented on 2017-09-23 03:57 (UTC)

Done.

mirbeksm commented on 2017-09-23 02:13 (UTC) (edited on 2017-09-23 02:17 (UTC) by mirbeksm)

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: source=("http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/${_major}+${_build}/jdk-${_major}_doc-all.zip" 'LICENSE-Oracle-Legal-Notices.txt') md5sums=('226081b7beb1ac91c3d5037e05522bc6' 'f7f540e6cc3ff25f0a393ece9128ee6c') Then build succeeds.

mkoskar commented on 2017-09-22 22:07 (UTC)

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

Det commented on 2017-09-22 20:50 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? 0 ✓ 23:49:08 ~/Downloads $ pql jdk | grep jshell jdk /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-jdk/bin/jshell jdk /usr/lib/jvm/java-9-jdk/jmods/jdk.jshell.jmod jdk /usr/share/licenses/java9-jdk/legal/jdk.jshell/ jdk /usr/share/licenses/java9-jdk/legal/jdk.jshell/COPYRIGHT jdk /usr/share/licenses/java9-jdk/legal/jdk.jshell/LICENSE 0 ✓ 23:49:12 ~/Downloads $ jshell | Welcome to JShell -- Version 9 | For an introduction type: /help intro jshell> What's your archlinux-java status?

NyxCode commented on 2017-09-22 20:30 (UTC)

What's up with JShell? Why isn't it included in this package?

mlelansky commented on 2017-09-22 12:52 (UTC)

Hi! Has got: ==> Validating source files with md5sums... jdk-9_doc-all.zip ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! :: failed to verify jdk-docs integrity

Det commented on 2017-09-22 07:32 (UTC) (edited on 2017-09-22 07:33 (UTC) by Det)

Oh. That's cool. Finally. I'd wanna be super sure tho. Cuz if I "update" to "9" and then they still dub new one a "9u7"... E: "java -version" just says: java version "9" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 9+181) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 9+181, mixed mode)

BOHverkill commented on 2017-09-22 07:29 (UTC)

AFAICT there is now a new (semantic) versioning scheme. It's 9.0.0 not 9u0. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/install/version-string-format.htm http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/223

Det commented on 2017-09-21 22:15 (UTC) (edited on 2017-09-24 06:29 (UTC) by Det)

Well, here's them Java 9. For What's New, see e.g.: - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/whatsnew/toc.htm#JSNEW-GUID-C23AFD78-C777-460B-8ACE-58BE5EA681F6 - http://blog.takipi.com/5-features-in-java-9-that-will-change-how-you-develop-software-and-2-that-wont/ - https://blog.jetbrains.com/idea/2017/09/java-9-and-intellij-idea/ To be noted tho, 32-bit support was dropped (even tho the exact same build for jre-devel has it: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jre-devel/) (Upd: both sources gone missing): "JDK 8 and below offered a client JVM and a server JVM for Windows 32-bit systems with the default being the client JVM. JDK 9 will offer only the server JVM. The server JVM has better performance although it might require more resources. The change is made to reduce complexity and to benefit from the increased capabilities of computers." p.s. The versioning is for the same trick as with 8u0. Pacman wouldn't recognize e.g. 9 -> 9u5 as an update, but 9u0 -> 9u5 works fine.

Det commented on 2017-09-21 22:13 (UTC) (edited on 2017-09-24 06:21 (UTC) by Det)

Well, here's them Java 9. For What's New, see e.g.: - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/whatsnew/toc.htm#JSNEW-GUID-C23AFD78-C777-460B-8ACE-58BE5EA681F6 - http://blog.takipi.com/5-features-in-java-9-that-will-change-how-you-develop-software-and-2-that-wont/ - https://blog.jetbrains.com/idea/2017/09/java-9-and-intellij-idea/ To be noted tho, 32-bit support was dropped (even tho the exact same build for jdk-devel has it: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk-devel/ (Upd: Not no more)): "JDK 8 and below offered a client JVM and a server JVM for Windows 32-bit systems with the default being the client JVM. JDK 9 will offer only the server JVM. The server JVM has better performance although it might require more resources. The change is made to reduce complexity and to benefit from the increased capabilities of computers." p.s. The versioning is for the same trick as with 8u0. Pacman wouldn't recognize e.g. 9 -> 9u5 as an update, but 9u0 -> 9u5 works fine.

Marcel_K commented on 2017-09-09 16:51 (UTC)

Nope. Nice unicode graphics by the way. ;)

Det commented on 2017-09-09 16:42 (UTC)

That guy right there. Can't you see him? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Marcel_K commented on 2017-09-09 16:28 (UTC) (edited on 2017-09-09 16:29 (UTC) by Marcel_K)

Det: who are you talking to?

Det commented on 2017-09-09 15:40 (UTC)

Cool homepage by the way.

Det commented on 2017-07-28 12:11 (UTC)

Fixed again. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

student975 commented on 2017-07-27 17:48 (UTC)

Have got again: ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/javafx/8.0.144-b14/090f390dda5b47b9b721c7dfaa008135/javafx-8u144-apidocs.zip

Det commented on 2017-07-19 09:04 (UTC)

Fixed.

student975 commented on 2017-07-19 00:17 (UTC)

Hi! Has got: -> Downloading javafx-8u141-apidocs.zip... % 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 http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/javafx/8.0.141-b15/336fa29ff2bb4ef291e347e091f7f4a7/javafx-8u141-apidocs.zip Aborting...

Det commented on 2017-07-11 08:13 (UTC)

Which AUR tool is that? You should report it there.

kingsdene commented on 2017-07-11 07:02 (UTC) (edited on 2017-07-11 07:16 (UTC) by kingsdene)

Im getting -- ERROR: jdk not found in AUR when using yaourt

Det commented on 2017-05-01 14:29 (UTC)

I've no clue what you mean by that nor what's the issue, as it works just fine with my own GNOME/Nautilus combo. Are you on Manjaro or the like?

jfernandz commented on 2017-05-01 14:15 (UTC)

@Det Of course. But it seems be more related with freedesktop, I think.

Det commented on 2017-05-01 14:06 (UTC)

Nautilus 3.24.1-1 on GNOME?

jfernandz commented on 2017-05-01 14:06 (UTC) (edited on 2017-05-01 14:06 (UTC) by jfernandz)

@Det It is nautilus 3.24.1-1

Det commented on 2017-05-01 05:48 (UTC) (edited on 2017-05-01 05:49 (UTC) by Det)

What's your file manager and desktop environment? Dolphin, Nautilus, PCManFM and Thunar all work with "Exec=/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jre/jre/bin/java -jar".

jfernandz commented on 2017-05-01 01:01 (UTC)

@Det I've solved by adding %f at the end of Exec= line. "Exec=/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jre/jre/bin/java -jar %f" You should consider to add that in the .desktop file of that package :D

Det commented on 2017-04-30 17:44 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-30 17:45 (UTC) by Det)

I know, I'm telling you, that's the change I've always done, which doesn't affect your issue anyway, as it's got something to do with your file manager/desktop environment.

jfernandz commented on 2017-04-30 17:43 (UTC)

I think is not related with the last modifications, It has been happening from the fresh install

Det commented on 2017-04-30 17:41 (UTC)

From the jre-8u131-linux-x64.tar.gz directly. The only thing I change in that .desktop is the Exec= line.

jfernandz commented on 2017-04-30 17:40 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-30 17:42 (UTC) by jfernandz)

what do you mean with "it's from the .tar.gz itself and only edited for the Exec=" ? I'm using Gnome.

Det commented on 2017-04-30 16:56 (UTC)

That's how it's supposed to look like, it's from the .tar.gz itself and only edited for the Exec=. You should probably look around for similar issues on your file manager/desktop environment.

jfernandz commented on 2017-04-30 16:51 (UTC)

I've tried use update-desktop-database and still doesn't work, that's my .desktop file: https://bpaste.net/show/febc80292f2d

Det commented on 2017-04-30 16:03 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-30 16:04 (UTC) by Det)

It should work through the /usr/share/applications/sun-java-jre8.desktop, which says: Exec=/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jre/jre/bin/java -jar and: MimeType=application/x-java-archive;application/x-jar; Maybe try "update-desktop-database" manually?

jfernandz commented on 2017-04-30 15:57 (UTC)

@Det The default app is file archiver and I cannot unsetup that, even the .jar file has got run permissions, but java there is not in the app list.

Det commented on 2017-04-30 15:12 (UTC)

To right click an appropriate file I think? Should work with .jar's, etc.

jfernandz commented on 2017-04-30 14:48 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-30 14:48 (UTC) by jfernandz)

What do I need to have got "java" in application list when I use "open file with ..."?

Det commented on 2017-04-20 05:02 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-20 05:05 (UTC) by Det)

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 2017-04-20 04:58 (UTC)

You need the cookie flag in the commandline (line 23: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=jdk).

liljaylj commented on 2017-04-19 22:02 (UTC)

idk, this message shows up when it tries to download jdk-8u131-linux-x64.tar.gz. i tried to open url in browser and it says "Unauthorized Request". problem solved: i've manually downloaded package from oracle.com and placed near PKGBUILD i know my english is awful, sorry

Det commented on 2017-04-19 16:52 (UTC)

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 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-19 16:57 (UTC) by WoefulDerelict)

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 14:38 (UTC)

Where what?

Det commented on 2017-04-19 14:37 (UTC)

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 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-19 17:01 (UTC) by WoefulDerelict)

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.

liljaylj commented on 2017-04-19 02:52 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-19 03:02 (UTC) by liljaylj)

ERROR: Failure while downloading http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/8u131-b11/d54c1d3a095b4ff2b6607d096fa80163/jdk-8u131-linux-x64.tar.gz

Det commented on 2017-04-08 15:31 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-08 15:32 (UTC) by Det)

/usr/share/applications/sun-javaws-jre8.desktop? E: Oh, you mean add the %f?

GI_Jack commented on 2017-04-08 15:12 (UTC)

can you ship a .desktop file for javaws so it can launch webapps? [Desktop Entry] Name=Oracle Java Web Start GenericName=Java Web Start Comment=Oracle Java Application Launcher Exec=/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jre/jre/bin/javaws %f Icon=javaws Terminal=false Type=Application NoDisplay=true Categories=Network;WebBrowser; MimeType=application/x-java-jnlp-file;

Det commented on 2017-01-19 15:16 (UTC)

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

WoefulDerelict commented on 2017-01-18 20:41 (UTC) (edited on 2017-04-19 03:56 (UTC) by WoefulDerelict)

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.

Marcel_K commented on 2016-12-20 23:56 (UTC)

On a Dutch technical site there is a message by a user, that states that paid commercial features are locked by default and have to be explicitly unlocked, e.g. by issuing -XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures. This has been since 1.7.0_04-b20. Source: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u4-relnotes-1575007.html ("New flag to unlock Commercial Features").

Det commented on 2016-12-19 15:23 (UTC)

That's extremely obscure. It seems to convey that JDK is free as long as it's not distributed to customers and/or it's "general purpose computing" ("desktops, notebooks, smartphones and tablets"), but not "specialized embedded computers used in intelligent systems" ("mobile phones, hand-held devices, networking switches and Blu-Ray players"). So already very confusing. Then the explanation goes on and says the "general purpose computing" devices are at fault, because they use the paid sub-features... Wtf? You just said that's when they're free? Then there's the bolded "anonymous" clarification that seems to imply what I got out of it, that "The moment you, as an organisation, are delivering something where Java is distributed to end users [...] that is not general-purpose any more". They offer those "commercial features" automatically through JDK, because they _are_ free up until you start selling products that includes them to customers. Which is the only way they'll know anyway. Some discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198960

Christian.H commented on 2016-12-19 10:11 (UTC) (edited on 2016-12-19 10:13 (UTC) by Christian.H)

I marked this package as "out-of-date" because it probably includes paid Oracle software: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/oracle_targets_java_users_non_compliance/ Java Mission Control is included by default. Full list of paid Oracle packages: - Java Flight Recorder - Java Mission Control - Java Advanced Management Console - MSI Enterprise JRE Installer - JRockit Flight Recorder - JRockit Mission Control Console observability - JRockit Mission Control Memory Leak Detector observability - JRE Usage Tracking - JRockit Real Time, Deterministic GC

Det commented on 2016-10-21 11:27 (UTC)

Boot or sth. Clear the cache, build with makepkg, ...

guiodic commented on 2016-10-21 11:23 (UTC)

AUR Packages (1) jre-8u112-1 :: Procedere con installazione? [S/n]s :: Retrieving package(s)... fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /home) Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set). fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /home) Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set). fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /home) Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set). fatal: Not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /home) Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS_FILESYSTEM not set). :: jre build files are up-to-date -- skipping grep: /home/guido/.cache/pacaur/jre/.SRCINFO: File o directory non esistente :: Checking jre integrity... ==> ERRORE: PKGBUILD non esiste. :: failed to verify jre integrity

alaskanarcher commented on 2016-10-21 08:29 (UTC)

I am getting a series of "warning: could not get file information for usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jdk/..." where the ... are dozens of files in both bin and jre. Install appears to be working. Anyone else getting this?

goetzc commented on 2016-09-16 19:14 (UTC)

You can delete from install file: update-desktop-database, update-mime-database and xdg-icon-resource, as those updates are now performed by pacman hooks.

Det commented on 2016-08-24 14:48 (UTC) (edited on 2016-09-10 21:23 (UTC) by Det)

700 votes <3. I'd like to celebrate this with an update, but.. E: It was also apparently 5 years since first submitted. Damn.

XTREEMRAGE commented on 2016-07-14 09:57 (UTC)

Thanks for this package, keep it up :)

Det commented on 2016-07-13 17:22 (UTC)

You could try 'makepkg -L', or just makepkg in-and-of-itself.

m6w6 commented on 2016-07-13 05:55 (UTC)

Currently failing in package(): ==> Starting package()... -> Creating directory structure... -> Removing redundancies... -> Moving contents... -> Fixing directory structure... syntax error at (eval 1) line 1, near "." ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package(). Aborting... ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jdk. yaourt 1.8.1 pacman 5.0.1 libalpm 10.0.1

erkexzcx commented on 2016-04-26 19:11 (UTC)

I always need to perform this command when starting specific app via WEB: sudo chown -R :wheel /etc/java*

erkexzcx commented on 2016-04-26 19:10 (UTC)

I always need to perform this command when starting specific app via WEB: sudo chown -R :wheel /etc/java*

Det commented on 2016-04-24 08:57 (UTC)

No need to be pasting those. Please just include them in the out-of-date message, if necessary.

FadeMind commented on 2016-04-20 04:20 (UTC)

Values for 8u92-1 pkgname=jre _major=8 _minor=92 _build=b14 md5sums=('b3c7031bc65c28c2340302065e7d00d3' '762729fa0faba8ff2b5a29c249c95079') md5sums_i686=('e2157870ce7f0484f347b8374da863a0') md5sums_x86_64=('df1371cec5c66c1039ccc3e7a433c1de')

twphoenix1982 commented on 2016-02-06 10:10 (UTC)

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.

Marcel_K commented on 2015-12-24 01:43 (UTC)

I stand corrected. And I know the previous ABI is still supported, but in the future this package should indeed correct the issue, not Oracle.

Det commented on 2015-12-23 23:30 (UTC)

You seem a little confused when you say that. I somehow missed that before, but these binaries are provided for whatever dependencies Oracle themselves chooses, that is, the ones in the widest circulation (used by Ubuntu). So, if you're to rebuild your product for every new major dependency release, you're essentially dropping support for any distribution that uses the old version. Unlike things like libpng and libjpeg, GCC actually still provides the previous ABI (as per the announcment), and even if they were to drop it, it would be up to an AUR package to provide it for our distribution.

Marcel_K commented on 2015-12-12 19:48 (UTC)

According to the script in [1] the binaries should be recompiled. However, this package relies on precompiled binaries. Should this be escalated to Oracle or …? [1] https://www.archlinux.org/news/c-abi-change/

Det commented on 2015-10-13 15:43 (UTC) (edited on 2015-11-19 19:32 (UTC) by Det)

Maybe. It wouldn't take much effort to add the sources, etc., but I'm not interested in introducing any complicated ARM-specific hacks in the build. E: There's also a separate package: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk-arm

xdqi commented on 2015-10-12 15:24 (UTC)

Is there possible to add support for ARM architecture (a.k.a ArchARM). Oracle provides JDK that runs on armv6h, armv7h and armv8h.

FadeMind commented on 2015-08-19 06:10 (UTC)

Values for 8u60-1 release pkgname=jre _major=8 _minor=60 _build=b27 md5sums_i686=('51512cfe055125570b5215a48a553d83') md5sums_x86_64=('e6e44f44b67c1a412f06694c9c30b77f')

Det commented on 2015-07-18 18:40 (UTC)

Our own OpenJDK already includes this, so why not ('local_policy.jar' and 'US_export_policy.jar' in /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk/jre/lib/security/). It's apparently not included in Oracle JDK for legal reasons: - https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/jre8-openjdk-headless/files/ - http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/notes/debian/jce-policy.html

veeti commented on 2015-07-17 17:25 (UTC)

Could you consider adding the unlimited crypto strength policies (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jce8-download-2133166.html) to this package? They provide access to important ciphers like 256-bit AES and are required for some applications. I dare say that upstream is just plain wrong still shipping this separately in 2015, and this would be the responsible thing to do.

Det commented on 2015-07-11 07:53 (UTC)

You can, because the description "Oracle Java Development Kit" mentions it: https://aur4.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=nd&K=java&outdated=&SB=v&SO=d&PP=250&do_Search=Go I've been meaning to ask this, seeing how you typo some words, do you have a dyslexia?

commented on 2015-07-11 05:26 (UTC)

As you say "for the search function" as I thing that a java package need jave java as one of they keywords, if someone search for java using only keywords then will sure be apreciated the corect tagging, those arent anymore groups, they are keyword and therefor are key for search word and so need to be correctly seted.

Det commented on 2015-07-09 09:32 (UTC)

The keywords are meant for the search function and not really to pretify the package page.

commented on 2015-07-09 09:30 (UTC)

you coud add jdk and java to the keywords too?

kkl2401 commented on 2015-05-25 08:14 (UTC)

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.

Det commented on 2015-04-24 08:39 (UTC)

They don't actually need to be, since they are sourced ("source <name>.sh" OR ". <name>.sh"), not executed ("./<name>.sh"): - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Autostarting#.2Fetc.2Fprofile - https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22036 Any package doing that is either a leftover of the old behavior (fixed in December 2010), or how upstream does things.

axper commented on 2015-04-24 08:35 (UTC)

The files at /etc/profile.d/jre*.sh aren't executable

truh commented on 2015-04-15 15:11 (UTC)

> jdk-8u45-linux-x64.tar.gz ... FAILED never mind, did only happen the first time.

truh commented on 2015-04-15 15:10 (UTC)

==> Validating source files with md5sums... jdk-8u45-linux-x64.tar.gz ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jdk.

MartyTM commented on 2015-03-20 20:03 (UTC)

Awesome, glad I could help. Thanks for the quick responses and packaging!

Det commented on 2015-03-19 19:27 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The HighContrast and LowContrast icons have been deprecated in at least GNOME way back in 2.22 [1], which was already available in Arch in April 2008 [2]. I've removed those from all of my Java packages. Thanks very much for your contribution! [1] = https://developer.gnome.org/hig-book/unstable/icons-design-accessible.html.en [2] = https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/gnome-control-center&id=d801cae824fc5f62f92415576ede3d2c226a2f8f

MartyTM commented on 2015-03-18 03:02 (UTC)

When uninstalling this package I get a message saying "error: command failed to execute correctly" right before the uninstall finishes. Debug output didn't give any useful information (this was the only error) and I can't find any evidence that something failed to remove. Not sure if it's just something like having a nonzero exit code without error or an actual error, but I figured I'd report it just in case. Thanks EDIT: Sorry for the deleted comment, couldn't find a better way to edit. I went through and checked and apparently it was because of there not being LowContrast and HighContrastInverse icon folders besides this package so the xdg-icon-resource command gives an exit code of 3. Not sure if I just don't have something installed on my system. I don't think there actually is any issue, unless these are deprecated icon sets or something like that.

Det commented on 2015-03-18 02:52 (UTC)

I'll check that out, my man.

kkl2401 commented on 2015-03-10 19:18 (UTC)

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 2015-03-03 21:17 (UTC)

E: Scratch that. Fixed.

stevenhoneyman commented on 2015-03-03 21:12 (UTC)

policytool-jdk8.desktop ... FAILED ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check!

BOHverkill commented on 2015-02-20 16:26 (UTC)

I clicked the false button, I am sorry :(

Det commented on 2015-02-20 06:40 (UTC)

BOHverkill, reason?

Det commented on 2015-02-02 02:47 (UTC)

Could you also include a javafx directory: http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/javafx/8.0.31-b13/javafx-8u31-apidocs.zip, since JavaFX has been a part of JDK since 7u6.

galaux commented on 2015-01-25 11:54 (UTC)

@ypoluektovich: thanks for your comment on the bug tracker. I forgot package "jdk" was about JDK 8 which I was not targetting yet anyway.

ypoluektovich commented on 2015-01-25 01:27 (UTC)

@Det: yep, both this package and jdk7 seem to have updated tzdata in their latest (current) versions. The previous versions of both these packages had old tzdata. @galaux: commented in the bugtracker.

Det commented on 2015-01-22 22:02 (UTC)

I'm currently getting: 0 ✓ det@Archlinux ~/Downloads/tzupdater-1.4.9-2014i $ sudo java -jar tzupdater.jar -u You have a later version than the embedded one. 1 ✗ det@Archlinux ~/Downloads/tzupdater-1.4.9-2014i $ sudo java -jar tzupdater.jar -V tzupdater version 1.4.9-b01 JRE time zone data version: tzdata2014j Embedded time zone data version: tzdata2014i

galaux commented on 2015-01-22 21:49 (UTC)

It just so happens someone opened this bug report [0] about this. I have been working on a "tzdata-java" which should also work for this Oracle JRE. I would need some testing on it – package available as specified on bug report. Feel free to install and check whether it fixes potential timezone issues you may have and report back on the bug tracker. Thanks! [0] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/42585

ypoluektovich commented on 2015-01-22 21:39 (UTC)

Java does not use tzdata, it has its own timezone files. Unfortunately, Oracle doesn't keep up with the changes, but at least they provide a tool[1] to update the TZ info. Unfortunately, these changes are currently lost on upgrade. Can we use this tool to patch the JDK during build? [1]: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/tzupdater-readme-136440.html

Det commented on 2015-01-21 17:04 (UTC)

Fixed.

biloucat commented on 2015-01-21 16:50 (UTC)

in PKGBUILD, # Fix .desktop paths is bugged: after install, Exec and Icon fields are erroneous

freswa commented on 2015-01-21 16:06 (UTC)

Sorry, just quickly read the code. You are totally right. Cheers

Det commented on 2015-01-21 12:04 (UTC)

It's not getting updated, there's just a message what's your current default, which I think makes more sense than to let people wonder why isn't this package doing anything.

freswa commented on 2015-01-21 12:01 (UTC)

Please do not update the archlinux-java defaults when upgrading. It should be up to the user to switch the defaults when upgrading.

Det commented on 2015-01-15 14:53 (UTC)

You're probably either using an old version of Yaourt, or your pacman is lower than 4.2.0: $ makepkg --version | head -1 makepkg (pacman) 4.2.0 $ yaourt --version | head -1 yaourt 1.5

dareTake commented on 2015-01-15 14:30 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with building the package. ==> Starting package()... /tmp/yaourt-tmp-dare/aur-jdk/./PKGBUILD: line 72: cd: jdk1.8.0_25: No such file or directory ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package(). Aborting... ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jdk.

kkl2401 commented on 2015-01-04 20:25 (UTC)

Thank you, updated.

Det commented on 2014-12-24 15:43 (UTC)

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')

Det commented on 2014-12-24 15:32 (UTC)

Nervermind, the fix was easy. By adding '-v' (--verbose) to the curl line, it gives: -> Downloading jdk-8u25-linux-x64.tar.gz... [...] > Cookie: "oraclelicense=a" Manually, we get: $ curl -LC - -b "oraclelicense=a" -O http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/8u25-b17/jdk-8u25-linux-x64.tar.gz [...] > Cookie: oraclelicense=a (quotes are lacking) So, instead of: DLAGENTS=('http::/usr/bin/curl -v -LC - -b "oraclelicense=a" -O') We need to use: DLAGENTS=('http::/usr/bin/curl -v -LC - -b oraclelicense=a -O') I'll report this elsewhere.

Det commented on 2014-12-24 15:20 (UTC)

It could be due to pacman 4.2.0. You're using that as well? Manual download works: $ curl -LC - -b "oraclelicense=a" -O http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/8u25-b17/jdk-8u25-linux-x64.tar.gz

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-12-24 10:38 (UTC)

download the tar.gz now broken again? greetings

Det commented on 2014-12-05 17:00 (UTC)

8u25-2: brought back the bundled Oracle DB and VisualVM, and attempted to simplify the PKGBUILD.

Det commented on 2014-12-05 09:16 (UTC)

Oh, right. Thanks for the link. You were only talking about packaging the scripts, but leaving the libs be. I'll fix that then. E: Apparently, old PKGBUILDs are also found in: - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ja/java8-oracle/PKGBUILD - http://pkgbuild.com/git/aur-mirror.git/tree/java8-oracle/PKGBUILD

galaux commented on 2014-12-05 09:02 (UTC)

FYI, my suggestion is still available here https://github.com/galaux/java8-oracle

Det commented on 2014-12-04 19:11 (UTC)

Was meant to be provided by derby (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/derby/), which I for some unrecallable reason made to replace that part of this package with. That's fine in essence, I think it's also what gallaux wanted, but it misses the whole lib directory, which I assume is what your troubles were about, too. Guess I could pull the whole directory back, along with VisualVM. Don't take too much space even put together anyway..

hcz commented on 2014-12-04 18:48 (UTC)

I just spent few hours to figure out what happend with Java DB driver in my Netbeans ;)

Det commented on 2014-12-03 20:59 (UTC)

Kill me. I'm right here, kill me. What of those did you need on your system?

hcz commented on 2014-12-03 20:57 (UTC)

"msg2 "Removing redundancies" rm -r db/ jre/lib/fontconfig.*.{bfc,properties.src} jre/plugin/ jre/{COPYRIGHT,LICENSE,README,*.txt} lib/visualvm/ man/ja # lib/missioncontrol" I'm gonna kill somebody...

Corubba commented on 2014-11-29 00:02 (UTC)

ttf-font is a meta package, provided by most (if not all) ttf-* packages like ttf-dejavu or ttf-liberation. It is used so packages don't need to depend on a specific ttf font package but just any ttf font. Install one of the ttf font packages and the dependency will be statisfied.

ac4r_g0 commented on 2014-11-28 23:50 (UTC)

What is the ttf-font dependency? There isn't package in the repos.

Marcel_K commented on 2014-11-25 20:22 (UTC)

And I think that the problem with packer is that it can't handle dynamically generated md5sums, like makepkg can.

Det commented on 2014-11-24 23:31 (UTC)

It's fine to flag for my part when the md5sums don't match, but naturally you should make sure you're not doing it unnecessarily.

Marcel_K commented on 2014-11-24 22:55 (UTC)

It built fine for me. Anyway, it's not out-of-date, so you shouldn't have flagged it like that anyway. Just leave a comment when you're sure the PKGBUILD or one of the accompanying files is wrong.

mitch_feaster commented on 2014-11-24 22:46 (UTC)

Hmm I flagged this as out-of-date but maybe it's fine... The md5 check for jdk-8u25-linux-x64.tar.gz fails when I try to install it with packer, but I can download and install it with makepkg just fine...

Carlinix commented on 2014-11-17 12:50 (UTC)

I recommend to include a configuration file like this: echo -e "/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jdk/jre/lib/amd64/\n/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-jdk/jre/lib/amd64/server/" > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/oracle-jdk.conf to solve this kind of problem: scilab-bin: libjava.so => not found libverify.so => not found libjvm.so => not found libjava.so => not found libverify.so => not found libjvm.so => not found libjava.so => not found libverify.so => not found libjvm.so => not found libjava.so => not found libverify.so => not found libjvm.so => not found libjava.so => not found libverify.so => not found libjvm.so => not found

Det commented on 2014-10-29 00:31 (UTC)

Reverted. It's generally not a good practice to use conflicting names with binaries from packages as important as util-linux. It's even worse to expect package maintainers to accommodate for these kinds of personal tweaks.

Det commented on 2014-10-28 21:14 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and was planning to secretly revert the line in a few days or so. :) I assume he thought it was simpler, and didn't want to use an alias.

Marcel_K commented on 2014-10-28 21:13 (UTC)

Why did you install perl-rename as rename? It's just a [community] package that installs /usr/bin/perl-rename.

Det commented on 2014-10-28 21:10 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting.

jleclanche commented on 2014-10-28 21:04 (UTC)

Ah, I see why; I have perl-rename installed under /usr/local/bin/rename. A simple fix, if you're willing to do it, is to use /usr/bin/rename.

Det commented on 2014-10-28 21:04 (UTC)

You didn't accidentally modify the PKGBUILD?

jleclanche commented on 2014-10-28 21:02 (UTC)

This is broken for me. . ==> Startar package()... -> Creating required dirs -> Preparing syntax error at (eval 1) line 1, near "." ==> FEL: Ett fel uppstod i package(). Avbryter... ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jdk.

Det commented on 2014-10-16 06:50 (UTC)

The same way.

CPUnltd commented on 2014-10-16 04:46 (UTC)

if I'm using this package, how do I do a manual update equivalent to the process on the main news page?

Det commented on 2014-10-15 06:22 (UTC)

Yeah, I trust your Bash skills, too. :) java.com has been updated for v8, and they provide "auto-download" links (no cookie flags), but only for JRE: https://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp

Det commented on 2014-10-15 06:14 (UTC)

java.com has now updated to v8, so we could start using the auto-download links (no cookie flags required): - downloads: https://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp?locale=en - x86_64: http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=97360 - i686: http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=97358

Marcel_K commented on 2014-10-14 22:26 (UTC)

And you'll have to change to first part of the MD5 checksum curl line to: https://www.oracle.com/webfolder/s/digest/${pkgver}checksum.html (you'll be able to shorten this a bit more).

zertyz commented on 2014-10-14 19:04 (UTC)

jdk 8u25 is out and required by some internet bankings...

KingYes commented on 2014-10-13 19:21 (UTC)

Thanks @galaux and @Det !

Det commented on 2014-10-13 16:14 (UTC)

I'm not sure you got that. What I'm referring to there is that the problem he's having was already explained by galaux for everybody, and I will surely be fixing it later on when I get the time to do so.

Commander commented on 2014-10-13 16:11 (UTC)

@Det Um the dependencies are wrong no? It should now be changed as galaux said. change your "java-runtime" providing package dependency from "java-common" to "java-runtime-common" Are the other things with JAVA_HOME etc fixed in this pkgbuild?

Det commented on 2014-10-13 15:16 (UTC)

I surely can, see the explanation from galaux just before your comment.

Det commented on 2014-10-13 15:15 (UTC)

I will, that was asked and explained in the comment just before yours, thank-you :).

rafaelff commented on 2014-10-13 15:13 (UTC)

@det: please set this package to work with 'java-runtime-common' and 'java-environment-common'. Thanks in advance!

KingYes commented on 2014-10-13 06:42 (UTC)

I can't upgrade my system cuz this package: :: Replace java-common with extra/java-runtime-common? [Y/n] Y resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: jdk: requires java-common Can you fixes it for me?

galaux commented on 2014-10-12 20:00 (UTC)

As previously reported, package "java-common" is now gone in favor of "java-runtime-common" and "java-environment-common". @users: once this very package is updated, you will be able to build and install it. Please note that a news item was posted (https://www.archlinux.org/news/java-users-manual-intervention-required-before-upgrade/) that provides 3 quick commands to prevent you from getting a "file conflict" error during the next pacman upgrade. Please see our Java wiki page for info, and forum, IRC, Mailing lists for help. @maintainer: you will need to: - change your "java-runtime" providing package dependency from "java-common" to "java-runtime-common" - add dependency "java-environment-common" to your "java-environment" providing packages Changelog: - Links from /usr/bin now belong to one of the mentioned "common" packages (fixes FS#41883) - Links from /usr/bin point at /usr/lib/jvm/default/bin/* and thus do not use JAVA_HOME nor script /usr/lib/java-common-wrapper (prevents incorrect Java path detection for many build or run scripts). As a side effect, forcing a Java runtime by setting JAVA_HOME is now NOT supported anymore. This should be all. Please have a look at official OpenJDK packages from extra for reference. "install" scripts for OpenJDK packages have also been revamped for nicer integration but without any consequence on other packages. These could easily be customized (or even taken "as is") for your own "install" scripts.

galaux commented on 2014-10-12 19:59 (UTC)

As previously reported, package "java-common" is now gone in favor of "java-runtime-common" and "java-environment-common". @users: once this very package is updated, you will be able to build and install it. Please note that a news item was posted (https://www.archlinux.org/news/java-users-manual-intervention-required-before-upgrade/) that provides 3 quick commands to prevent you from getting a "file conflict" error during the next pacman upgrade. Please see our Java wiki page for info, and forum, IRC, Mailing lists for help. @maintainer: you will need to: - change your "java-runtime" providing package dependency from "java-common" to "java-runtime-common" - add dependency "java-environment-common" to your "java-environment" providing packages Changelog: - Links from /usr/bin now belong to one of the mentioned "common" packages (fixes FS#41883) - Links from /usr/bin point at /usr/lib/jvm/default/bin/* and thus do not use JAVA_HOME nor script /usr/lib/java-common-wrapper (prevents incorrect Java path detection for many build or run scripts). As a side effect, forcing a Java runtime by setting JAVA_HOME is now NOT supported anymore. This should be all. Please have a look at official OpenJDK packages from extra for reference. "install" scripts for OpenJDK packages have also been revamped for nicer integration but without any consequence on other packages. These could easily be customized (or even taken "as is") for your own "install" scripts.

galaux commented on 2014-10-12 19:59 (UTC)

As previously reported, package "java-common" is now gone in favor of "java-runtime-common" and "java-environment-common". @users: once this very package is updated, you will be able to build and install it. Please note that a news item was posted (https://www.archlinux.org/news/java-users-manual-intervention-required-before-upgrade/) that provides 3 quick commands to prevent you from getting a "file conflict" error during the next pacman upgrade. Please see our Java wiki page for info, and forum, IRC, Mailing lists for help. @maintainer: you will need to: - change your "java-runtime" providing package dependency from "java-common" to "java-runtime-common" - add dependency "java-environment-common" to your "java-environment" providing packages Changelog: - Links from /usr/bin now belong to one of the mentioned "common" packages (fixes FS#41883) - Links from /usr/bin point at /usr/lib/jvm/default/bin/* and thus do not use JAVA_HOME nor script /usr/lib/java-common-wrapper (prevents incorrect Java path detection for many build or run scripts). As a side effect, forcing a Java runtime by setting JAVA_HOME is now NOT supported anymore. This should be all. Please have a look at official OpenJDK packages from extra for reference. "install" scripts for OpenJDK packages have also been revamped for nicer integration but without any consequence on other packages. These could easily be customized (or even taken "as is") for your own "install" scripts.

Det commented on 2014-10-05 13:34 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :)

galaux commented on 2014-10-05 13:15 (UTC)

FYI, current package "java-common" will be split due to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/41883 The only changes needed will be: - for java-runtime-headless providing packages to now depend on "java-runtime-common" rather than "java-common" - for java-environment providing packages to now depend on "java-environment-common" These new packages are expected to be pushed to extra next week-end.

stativ commented on 2014-09-24 19:19 (UTC)

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: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/41862 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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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. :-)

Det commented on 2014-09-11 16:36 (UTC)

Yea.: 1) # rm -r /usr/share/licenses/jdk/ 2) install 8u20-2

edoantonioco commented on 2014-09-11 16:34 (UTC)

I cant update it. :: ¿Continuar con la instalación? [S/n] s (1/1) verificando llaves en el llavero [####################################################] 100% (1/1) verificando la integridad de los paquetes [####################################################] 100% (1/1) cargando los archivos del paquete... [####################################################] 100% (1/1) verificando conflictos entre archivos [####################################################] 100% error: error al realizar la transacción (archivos en conflicto) jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk existe en el sistema de archivos Ocurrieron errores, no se actualizaron paquetes ==> AVISO: Sus paquetes se han guardado en /tmp/yaourt-tmp-eduardo ==> ERROR: no se puede actualizar Should I delete that file?

Det commented on 2014-09-10 02:26 (UTC)

I responded in the mailing thread. Let's continue that in there and stop inadvertently provoking disagreements with phrases like "this is sick" and "endless discussion", all right? - https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-September/029499.html

russo79 commented on 2014-09-10 01:28 (UTC)

@Det I'm not sure of your interpretation of the naming rules. After reading the preamble of the OpenJDK bylaws [1], and giving a look at their [2] website, I would interpret OpenJDK more as a "vendor" than a project name. This "vendor" provides several projects, one of them named JDK 8 [3]. Although I may be wrong, this makes me think that my interpretation of "java<majorversion>-<vendor>" as naming convention is more appropriate than "java-<major version>-<project name>" . I would be grateful if you could you give a look at their site just to check if I might have a point here. :) Personally, I really don't care about these naming issues, the only thing that I wanted was for the JDKs/JREs to respect the new packaging guidelines and make usage of "java-common". However, after reading the comments being posted on some of the JDK/JREs packages as well as the requests and comments on [aur-requests] and [aur-general], I would like to avoid this situation to become a endless discussion (we have enough of them in the FOSS ecosystem). [1] http://openjdk.java.net/bylaws [2] http://openjdk.java.net/ [3] http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8/

commented on 2014-09-09 22:22 (UTC)

Ok for the naming issue I brig this thread: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2014-September/029497.html

dotboris commented on 2014-09-09 19:01 (UTC)

I think that there is a problem with the licenses. This caused me to have file conflicts when updating this package. It looks like license files are both installed in /usr/share/licenses/jdk and /usr/share/licenses/java8-jdk but only the files in /usr/share/licenses/java8-jdk are tracked. Here's what I have: [boris@boris-desktop licenses]$ pacaur -Ql jdk | grep licenses 0 jdk /usr/share/licenses/ jdk /usr/share/licenses/java8-jdk/ jdk /usr/share/licenses/java8-jdk/COPYRIGHT jdk /usr/share/licenses/java8-jdk/LICENSE jdk /usr/share/licenses/java8-jdk/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME-JAVAFX.txt jdk /usr/share/licenses/java8-jdk/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt jdk /usr/share/licenses/jdk [boris@boris-desktop licenses]$ ls /usr/share/licenses/jdk 0 COPYRIGHT LICENSE THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME-JAVAFX.txt THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt

Det commented on 2014-09-09 16:10 (UTC)

Well, because the path for OpenJDK was chosen as '/usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk' (java-<major version>-<project name>), I simply preferred making mine 'java-8-jdk' (not 'java-8-oracle'). The actual name of the project is 'JDK', not 'Oracle JDK', and it also creates consistency with the man pages: $ man java-openjdk8 $ man java-jdk8 Instead of: $ man java-openjdk8 $ man java8-oracle Which also made me change the following dependencies: - java-runtime-headless-oracle - java-runtime-oracle - java-web-start-oracle - java-environment-oracle to: - java-runtime-headless-jre - java-runtime-jre - java-web-start-jre - java-environment-jdk (a JDK component) Even if all of those end up being '-jdk' for simplicity, I'd still prefer that setup, than the whole excessive "Oracle" tagging. > By the way, shouldn't jdk-devel and jre-devel also be changed to make usage of the java-common package? I suppose you didn't have a look. They both do.

russo79 commented on 2014-09-09 10:41 (UTC)

@Jristz Nowhere in the Java Package Guidelines [1], it is specified that the package JREs/JDKs must follow a given name convention. Also "the guy in jdk7" as you named it just said that he'd *like* to follow the convention used by the packages provided officially :) (which seams to be "<jdk/jre><majorversion>-<vendor>"). @Det Although you are free to follow the naming convention you want (since officially there is none), it would be nice for all the JDKs and JREs provided both in AUR and on the official repositories to follow the same naming convention. What do you think about renaming your jdk and jre packages to jdk8-oracle and jre8-oracle respectively? To ease the transition you could even add a "provides" entry in your PKGBUILDs so that packages depending on this one can keep working without having their PKGBUILDs modified. I know this is a bit PITA, but what do you think? By the way, shouldn't jdk-devel and jre-devel also be changed to make usage of the java-common package? [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java_Package_Guidelines

commented on 2014-09-08 21:00 (UTC)

Is not the new Java guideliness say that this package need to be namd jdk-oracle (and the dev: jdk-devel-oracle)? The guy in jdk7 is claiming that and the request on jdk7-oracle -> jdk7 claim that the new scheme name is jdk7-oracle and this package need to be changed too.

stativ commented on 2014-09-06 21:06 (UTC)

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.

leonardof commented on 2014-09-05 04:09 (UTC)

The package update pulled java-common, which conflicted with existing /etc/profile.d/jre.{,c}sh. Removing the files made it work.

Det commented on 2014-09-04 10:40 (UTC)

You people. @klingt.net, yes, as I already told you, the old $JAVA_HOME from /etc/profile.d/jdk.sh (without rebooting) was the problem. @lots0logs, yes, as I already told you, the upgrade process is: 1) # rm -r /usr/share/licenses/jdk/ 2) install 8u20-2

klingt.net commented on 2014-09-04 09:13 (UTC)

@simonorono I switched back to jdk8-openjdk from extra. But I think the problem was a wrong $JAVA_HOME, the old value was /opt/java and the new one is /usr/lib/jvm/default. This was changed due to the java-common update and maybe I overlooked the message to logout/login, so the old value was still present.

lots0logs commented on 2014-09-04 03:25 (UTC)

I got this error when I attempted to update: error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) unable to --force directory-file conflicts jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk exists in filesystem Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. For a quick fix I edited the PKGBUILD by removing the line that attempts to create a symlink over the /usr/share/licenses/jdk directory (that already existed on my system.)

Det commented on 2014-09-03 20:35 (UTC)

It's automatically set by /etc/profile.d/jdk.sh or /etc/profile.d/jre.sh (to let apps know where Java is located). /etc/profile.d/jre.sh is now owned by 'java-common' and shouldn't be installed by Java packages anymore.

commented on 2014-09-03 20:33 (UTC)

@klingt.net @det this is embarrassing, I just rebooted my PC and everything is fine BTW: -I tried archlinux-java fix and it didn't worked -I never set JAVAHOME

Det commented on 2014-09-03 20:15 (UTC)

Uhh.. so what happens when you run: # archlinux-java fix Also, what's the version of your 'java-common' (should be 1-6), and the output of: $ archlinux-java status I just retried the upgrade, and I still get the same /usr/bin/java (-> /usr/lib/java-common-wrapper) content, which is: #!/bin/bash exec "${JAVA_HOME:-/usr/lib/jvm/default}/bin/${0##*/}" "$@" E: It might also be enough to just "unset JAVA_HOME", "source /etc/profile" or reboot. Any of those to update the JAVA_HOME variable.

klingt.net commented on 2014-09-03 19:58 (UTC)

@simonorono confirmed, same here

commented on 2014-09-03 17:10 (UTC)

After the last update, when I try to run Java I get the following: /usr/bin/java: line 2: /opt/java/bin/java: No such file or directory

commented on 2014-09-03 14:01 (UTC)

@Det will that must be done on every update?

Det commented on 2014-09-03 13:43 (UTC)

@simonorono, I just told how to fix that?: 1) # rm -r /usr/share/licenses/jdk/ 2) install 8u20-2

commented on 2014-09-03 13:41 (UTC)

I'm getting this: error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk exists in filesystem Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.

BunBum commented on 2014-09-03 11:37 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake... :-/

Det commented on 2014-09-03 11:31 (UTC)

Also, you're going to have to remove the license folder manually before having it replaced with the symlink: # rm -r /usr/share/licenses/jre/

Det commented on 2014-09-03 11:29 (UTC)

@BunBum, the syntax is '-version': └┌(%:~/Desktop)┌- java -version java version "1.8.0_20" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_20-b26) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.20-b23, mixed mode) @frederik, I just told you, if you would have scrolled just a couple of comments down: to allow parallel installations, which I was asked to support now that Guillaume implemented that possibility through 'java-common' (OpenJDK, JRE7, etc.). @madmack, apparently you're going to have to first remove that folder manually, as Pacman refuses to (even with --force) to replace a directory with a file (symlink).

freswa commented on 2014-09-03 10:20 (UTC)

and if I exclude java-common I get this one: jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk exists in filesystem

freswa commented on 2014-09-03 10:16 (UTC)

Why does this depends on java-common? I'm getting errors when installing java-common The links "/usr/lib/jvm/java-default-runtime“ and „/usr/lib/jvm/default-runtime“ can not be created.

madmack commented on 2014-09-03 06:58 (UTC)

getting this error when trying to update today: jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk exists in filesystem

Det commented on 2014-09-03 01:53 (UTC)

@sl1pkn07, fixed that as well. E: Also, you could probably have a bit more careful look on things before adding a new comment. Thanks.

Det commented on 2014-09-03 01:04 (UTC)

8u20-2: support 'archlinux-java' (extra/java-common). See: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java#Switching_between_JVM

Det commented on 2014-09-03 01:04 (UTC)

8u20-2: support 'archlinux-java' (extra/java-common). See: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java#Switching_between_JVM

sl1pkn07 commented on 2014-09-03 01:02 (UTC)

-> Moving stuff in place install: cannot stat 'jre/lib/etc/java-//jvm.cfg': No such file or directory

Det commented on 2014-08-28 14:49 (UTC)

Certainly.

Det commented on 2014-08-27 18:36 (UTC)

Yes, I'll see when I have time. Thanks.

Det commented on 2014-08-27 18:35 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to get around to that asap.

rafaelff commented on 2014-08-25 15:02 (UTC)

@Det: hey, why don't you try to set the package to use archlinux-java, provided by 'java-common' ? Looks like you would need to drop jre.csh and jre.sh, move /opt/java to /usr/lib/jvm/, some other stuff.

russo79 commented on 2014-08-25 08:29 (UTC)

Maybe this package can be updated and jdk8-oracle [1] can be merged into this one. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk8-oracle/

russo79 commented on 2014-08-25 08:17 (UTC)

For what it's worth, https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk8-oracle/ is already packaged according to the new guidelines.

mtorromeo commented on 2014-08-25 08:08 (UTC)

Please update the package according to the new Arch Java guidelines: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java

kkl2401 commented on 2014-08-21 19:59 (UTC)

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)?

Det commented on 2014-06-25 14:51 (UTC)

They move it back during build. E: Just kidding, see: http://stackoverflow.com/q/10268583/1821548 (and especially my answer: http://stackoverflow.com/a/22466509/1821548)

slot commented on 2014-06-25 14:44 (UTC)

Download location seems to have changed

Marcel_K commented on 2014-06-10 11:40 (UTC)

If you look at the PKGBUILD, you'll notice that a 64-bit tarball is downloaded when the target system is x86_64.

commented on 2014-06-10 07:46 (UTC)

I just noticed this PKGBUILD uses the i586 java tarball... does this make a difference in practice? I'm using arch x86_64

stativ commented on 2014-06-03 10:23 (UTC)

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.

Det commented on 2014-05-30 13:56 (UTC)

Assumably yes, if that's what the -compat packages are doing.

vibee commented on 2014-05-30 13:52 (UTC)

Can't we set different installation paths for the JVM and JDK?

Det commented on 2014-05-30 13:39 (UTC)

In simple terms, both packages install same files, so that's why they're in conflict.

vibee commented on 2014-05-30 13:36 (UTC)

Why is this package in conflict with jdk7-openjdk? I would like to install JKD8 and JDK7.

Det commented on 2014-05-15 11:58 (UTC)

It can happen from time to time that Arch pisses me off and I start exclusively using Windows, which doesn't give a crap about Unix permissions. So there.

liujed commented on 2014-05-15 01:40 (UTC)

Please fix the file permissions on the package's files. Everything in the tarball has mode 777.

Det commented on 2014-04-27 18:58 (UTC)

/opt/java/jre/lib/security/java.policy is now also backed up automatically.

kkl2401 commented on 2014-04-27 18:47 (UTC)

Why?

Det commented on 2014-04-27 13:41 (UTC)

That's what workaround, not a fix. The profile.d scripts are supposed to include non-standard locations in your path. But to make this work I'd need you to do what I asked you in my last reply.

ansidev commented on 2014-04-27 13:38 (UTC)

@Det: I found the way to fix the error, just run command: sudo ln -s '/opt/java/bin/java' '/usr/bin/java'

rdjack21 commented on 2014-04-26 04:12 (UTC)

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

rdjack21 commented on 2014-04-26 03:00 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you..

Det commented on 2014-04-25 08:37 (UTC)

Enabled by default: permission java.awt.AWTPermission "accessClipboard" - https://blogs.oracle.com/kyle/entry/copy_and_paste_in_java

Det commented on 2014-04-25 08:37 (UTC)

Enabled by default: permission java.awt.AWTPermission "accessClipboard" - https://blogs.oracle.com/kyle/entry/copy_and_paste_in_java

Det commented on 2014-04-25 08:07 (UTC)

Really? Could you post your /etc/profile in Pastebin? What happens, if you "$ source /etc/profile.d/jdk.sh" directly? Is $JAVA_HOME unset or is it just the apps that aren't working?

ansidev commented on 2014-04-25 03:28 (UTC)

Nothing changed :(

Det commented on 2014-04-24 13:21 (UTC)

Seems like at least "/etc/profile.d/jdk.sh" is not sourced automatically for you. I don't know, if anything else from /etc/profile.d/* is either, but a simple "$ source /etc/profile" should work. 0 ✓ det@Archlinux ~ $ echo $JAVA_HOME /opt/java/jre

ansidev commented on 2014-04-24 09:53 (UTC)

If I install Open JDK, there are no problems.

ansidev commented on 2014-04-24 09:52 (UTC)

I cannot start Intellij IDEA or eclipse. For example: I received a message "No JDK found. Please validate either IDEA_JDK, JDK_HOME or JAVA_HOME environment variable points to valid JDK installation." when I try to run Intellij IDEA. And java is not default application for .jar file. How to fix them? My ArchLinux is a fresh system.

Det commented on 2014-04-24 02:13 (UTC)

Meaning?

ansidev commented on 2014-04-24 01:50 (UTC)

Package not working. Java system variables not configured correctly.

johnthekipper commented on 2014-04-24 00:45 (UTC)

please add in : /opt/java/jre/lib/security/java.policy permission java.awt.AWTPermission "accessClipboard";

kkl2401 commented on 2014-04-16 16:33 (UTC)

Updated.

denisfalqueto commented on 2014-04-16 03:11 (UTC)

JDK 8u5 is out :)

Det commented on 2014-04-08 14:24 (UTC)

Not really. It actually seems like you (or whoever told you about this) have misunderstood me in pretty much everything you just brought up. First of all, I'm a bit puzzled with your statement of you "always knowing" I've had some kind of resentment towards you, which you cannot explain. I can not either. I have no idea what you are talking about. You release Open Java for Arch and I release Oracle Java in here. I was a real moron, if I resented you for that. There is absolutely nothing personal to it. Also, I'd like to believe that leaving _any_ unnecessary "bitterness" at a remote location is _the_ best thing you _can_ do (the mailing list rules don't allow this anyway). But that's not the case. When I talk about you not having "a clue" I was talking about packaging Oracle JDK in our repos, which is prevented by the removal of the DLJ, which in turn is the whole reason I ever got to maintain this thing. And I'm _definitely_ not bitter at that.

galaux commented on 2014-04-08 09:02 (UTC)

Hello Det, I think you misunderstood me in the email you cite, I am just bringing the point to the ML about shipping OpenJDK without Icedtea. I have always suspected you had some kind of resentment towards me that I cannot explain. Please feel free to email me privately if you would like to calmly sort human things out. Also please do not make such bitter statements on a remote place – not everybody is notified about this package' comments – but instead do post to arch-general in order to communicate. Hopes this can peacefully clarify the situation. Guillaume

Det commented on 2014-04-08 02:24 (UTC)

I actually found it amusing to see our second maintainer of OpenJDK not to have a clue about packaging this thing in our repos (option #3 in [1]), which has been impossible since August 2011[2], or the existance of the Java Snapshots[3], to which end I've provided packages in the AUR since September 2012 (jre-/jdk-devel). [1] = https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2014-March/026082.html [2] = http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Oracle-retires-licence-for-distributing-its-Java-with-Linux-1332835.html [3] = http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/distro-pkg-dev/2014-March/026973.html Well. In a similar way I suppose our devs might smirk at me for trying to bump a 7-1 with 7u1-1. Or to do what I did now, but not report the Pacman 'bug' upstream. They're really doing a good job trying to bring us that long-waited OpenJDK 8.

FernandoBasso commented on 2014-03-29 11:20 (UTC)

This package is very important. Keep up the good work.

Det commented on 2014-03-22 12:13 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will create one even, if I don't care about that.

vnoel commented on 2014-03-22 10:21 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if it is the right place to ask for that but it would be great to have a jdk-compat as with jdk7 and jdk6 :)

Det commented on 2014-03-21 13:34 (UTC)

What he said.

Marcel_K commented on 2014-03-21 12:05 (UTC)

And if you only want compression disabled of *this* package, you can always add PKGEXT='.pkg.tar' in the PKGBUILD of this package.

Det commented on 2014-03-20 16:29 (UTC)

Hmm, well, you removed your good question, but I'm gonna answer here anyway even, if already have. The answer is: yes, we can speed up the compression like it used to be. To have PKGEXT='pkg.tar' for all packages: $ sudo sed -i "s/PKGEXT=.*/PKGEXT='.pkg.tar'/" /etc/makepkg.conf And to revert that: $ sudo sed -i "s/PKGEXT=.*/PKGEXT='.pkg.tar.xz'/" /etc/makepkg.conf But clearly you should just acquaint yourself with /etc/makepkg.conf. It's got a lot of goodies. E: The Wiki's good too: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Makepkg#Create_uncompressed_packages. People like me, graysky and Kynikos spend quite a lot of time editing it, actually.

Det commented on 2014-03-19 00:57 (UTC)

And here I was hoping to get rid of those. Just now made you switch, though?

Zombifier commented on 2014-03-19 00:45 (UTC)

Should JDK conflict with java-runtime=7 and java-environment=7 as well? Currently pacman fails to replace jdk7-openjdk automatically.

kkl2401 commented on 2014-03-19 00:13 (UTC)

Updated.

Det commented on 2014-03-18 19:55 (UTC)

Updated to Java SE 8: https://blogs.oracle.com/java/entry/java_se_8_is_now Made it a 8u0, so we can have 8u1, 8u2, etc. That was the mistake in the 7 series, as Pacman considers 7u1-1 a downgrade from 7-1.

Det commented on 2014-03-18 19:55 (UTC)

Updated to Java SE 8: https://blogs.oracle.com/java/entry/java_se_8_is_now Made it a 8u0, so we can have 8u1, 8u2, etc. That was the mistake in the 7 series, as Pacman considers 7u1-1 a downgrade from 7-1.

Det commented on 2014-03-18 19:02 (UTC)

OMG. Java 8 is here already.

Det commented on 2014-03-16 14:59 (UTC)

We'll see how the Stack Overflow thread evolves: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10959815/1821548 E: Seems like this was the first guy to come up with the "--header" workaround: http://blog.kdecherf.com/2012/04/12/oracle-i-download-your-jdk-by-eating-magic-cookies/. For the longest time I thought it was one of our own guys. Quite funny and informative actually.

Det commented on 2014-03-15 19:20 (UTC)

Oracle apparently changed their fantastic license agreement method once again. That change originally dates back two years (March 2012), which made me include the DLAGENTS override.

ashwin_cse commented on 2014-03-15 06:57 (UTC)

"$makepkg -s" does not get the jdk tar file, because oracle wants the user to accept license agreement before you can get the jdk tar file. So when i do a makepkg -s it downloads a html file (which wrongly states as jdk...tar.gz, but it is actually a html file) which states that this download is not permitted and i need to accept the license agreement before i can download.

Det commented on 2014-03-05 13:37 (UTC)

All right, then.

ant32 commented on 2014-03-05 13:36 (UTC)

Sorry. Accidentally clicked flag out of date

Det commented on 2014-03-05 11:34 (UTC)

# source /etc/profile

RubenKelevra commented on 2014-03-05 08:33 (UTC)

JAVA_HOME is empty for the root user, was this intentional? [root@delling ~]# echo $JAVA_HOME [ruben@delling ~]$ echo $JAVA_HOME /opt/java/jre

Det commented on 2014-02-24 05:16 (UTC)

Removed "PKGEXT='.pkg.tar'" due to a request of having your own way through makepkg.conf.

Det commented on 2014-02-24 05:16 (UTC)

Removed "PKGEXT='.pkg.tar'" due to a request of having your own way through makepkg.conf.

Det commented on 2014-02-12 15:32 (UTC)

Ok, well the phrasing was a bit misleading, since it's not about the size or the unreliability of the Oracle servers that the download doesn't work. So it's not like an "improvement", it's actually the only way to do it. Then about the PKGEXT, I've actually set it in quite a lot of places, and at times have thought about removing it from all of them (just because I can obviously set it myself), but people never complained so I never bothered. The initial argument I think was something like 'this thing is never provided to anybody, so a as-fast-as-possible install is preferable'. But compression should, of course, be done like you like it to be done. Sure makes a lot more sense.

hefeweiz3n commented on 2014-02-12 15:23 (UTC)

As I stated: I know why DLAGENTS is in there, I remember the times when it wasn't... However the PKGEXT is definitely something where the user setting should take preference. On my laptop I too have compression disabled in /etc/makepkg.conf as it takes too long, however when building on said server for distribution on computers managed by me I need it. So it would be much appreciated if you could in fact remove it and set it locally on your computers according to your needs (which is in my opinion also the much cleaner version than setting it in a single package). Thanks in advance!

Det commented on 2014-02-12 12:01 (UTC)

I agree it's not nice to override the DLAGENTS, but if you actually tried removing it you'll see why it's there.

hefeweiz3n commented on 2014-02-12 08:06 (UTC)

Please remove PKGEXT from the PKGBUILD. If people don't want to compress locally built backages they can set it in their makepkg.conf. For people like me, who build the package on a fast machine and then distribute it to their computers via internt compression is necessary and it it always a pain in the butt to have to comment this out manually. It is also not nice to override user settings (In the case of the download agent I can however understand it with the big source package size and as I know the oracle download servers to be a bit unreliable).

Det commented on 2014-02-07 16:58 (UTC)

Took a while, but the dependency's finally fixed. 'Atk'[1] was pulled in as a dependency of 'classpath'[2], which made the reporter think that classpath should be required. After some discussion we found out that not only was 'atk' the real dependency, but this package doesn't require it at all. So, even if you don't use OpenJDK[3], atk will still be installed, but it's required by things like GTK+ 2/3 anyway, so few will care. [1] = https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/atk/ [2] = https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/classpath/ [3] = https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/jdk7-openjdk/

Det commented on 2014-01-31 21:36 (UTC)

Just to fill you in on this, we had a little discussion with Alex and he's decided to re-open the bug: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38567 His original idea was that since NetBeans continued to work even with the dependency he assumed everybody would be happy. But then when I asked him about it he agreed that if it really was unnecessary, then indeed it should be reverted. We'll see what the original reporter has to say.

bigcajun commented on 2014-01-31 14:24 (UTC)

I agree with you. Not sure why the dependency was added to NetBeans. NetBeans runs fine for me without "classpath" installed. I haven't looked at all the details, but I think this package provides all the stuff that's in "classpath" so someone with this package installed shouldn't need "classpath" installed anyway. I added classpath to the provides list and rebuilt so that updating NetBeans wouldn't require me to also install classpath. I guess that's more of a hack than the real solution. Maybe the person that filed the bug has a broken JDK (i.e. not this one)? It wasn't stated in the bug report what the Java environment (or which java packages) were installed.

Det commented on 2014-01-31 12:18 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. (At least) for me NetBeans works just fine even with just 'jre7-openjdk', so the whole idea that NetBeans wouldn't even run, if you hadn't installed Classpath seems kinda crazy: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/38567 And what's even crazier is that it actually went through. I removed both ~/.netbeans/ and ~/.cache/netbeans/ just in case and the EULA works too.

bigcajun commented on 2014-01-31 03:49 (UTC)

The NetBeans package recently added a dependency on the "classpath" package. Unless I am mistaken, having Oracle's JDK installed fulfills all of the NetBeans package needs. Might I suggest this package be updated to add "classpath" to the "provides" line in PKGBUILD? What I'm getting at is there doesn't seem to be a need to install the "classpath" package if you have this JDK package installed.

Det commented on 2014-01-30 19:41 (UTC)

No, sandy. Firefox doesn't satisfy Chrome, just like JRE doesn't satisfy JDK.

sandy8925 commented on 2014-01-30 18:25 (UTC)

Det: This is the JRE, so shouldn't it satisfy any requirements for java-environment ?

kkl2401 commented on 2014-01-20 12:32 (UTC)

Updated.

kkl2401 commented on 2013-12-28 11:50 (UTC)

Done.

ilpianista commented on 2013-12-28 08:50 (UTC)

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

Det commented on 2013-12-20 08:30 (UTC)

No, because it _doesn't_ provide it.

dracorp commented on 2013-12-20 08:29 (UTC)

Could you add java-environment to the provides?

romax commented on 2013-12-06 01:06 (UTC)

@matrs: seems you have used the wrong package file with pacman -U. Use instead: pacman -U jre-7.XX-1-ARCH.pkg.tar

Det commented on 2013-11-02 08:57 (UTC)

Well. Yes.

donniezazen commented on 2013-10-31 06:19 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure as long as I have jdk installed I will not need jre. Am I right?

mini commented on 2013-10-19 10:26 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it is working now

Det commented on 2013-10-19 09:33 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?&q=site%3Aarchlinux.org+strip+binary -> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_User_Guidelines#Prerequisites -> # pacman -S base-devel (which is _always_ required when building source packages from the AUR)

mini commented on 2013-10-19 08:46 (UTC)

I have get error "cannot find the strip binary" when I try to update jre

Det commented on 2013-10-18 20:38 (UTC)

@nicoulaj, added.

Det commented on 2013-10-18 16:38 (UTC)

Sorry.

Det commented on 2013-10-18 16:30 (UTC)

@cmorgenstern, it's not "new". It's been that way since March 2012. @everybody else, it was my update script that f*cked it up. 90% of the time they actually work and facilitate the lack of support for multiple maintainers.

rafaelff commented on 2013-10-17 10:07 (UTC)

Missing major version "_major=7", while minor version set twice.

philanecros commented on 2013-10-17 06:57 (UTC)

Would you please add support for armv6h and armv7h? Oracle's release support these 2 archtypes.

pingpong commented on 2013-10-17 04:11 (UTC)

Yes, as BertVoegele suggested changing one of the _minor=45 to _major=7 in the PKGBUILD fixes the upgrade issue. However, the AUR helper Packer would still think the latest version of jre is jre .45-1 (instead of jre 7.45-1) so it will still prompt user to upgrade jre.

SinClaus commented on 2013-10-17 01:58 (UTC)

Oracle site says: Sorry! In order to download products from Oracle Technology Network you must agree to the OTN license terms. Be sure that... Your browser has "cookies" and JavaScript enabled. You clicked on "Accept License" for the product you wish to download. You attempt the download within 30 minutes of accepting the license. From here you can go... Back to Previous Page Site Map OTN Homepage and aur download fail.

kkl2401 commented on 2013-10-16 15:27 (UTC)

Updated.

morgenstern commented on 2013-10-16 07:11 (UTC)

BertVoegele's comment solves the Oracle TOS problem and my build error. Thanks!

BertVoegele commented on 2013-10-16 06:27 (UTC)

@ oboedad55: Change one of the "_minor=45" lines in PKGBUILD to "_major=7" or wait for the maintainer to update the package (or uninstall jre at all).

oboedad55 commented on 2013-10-16 06:15 (UTC)

curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading jre-u45-linux-x64.tar.gz Aborting...

morgenstern commented on 2013-10-16 03:50 (UTC)

Needs to be updated to circumvent Oracle's new stupid "Agree to License" block. Also, I am getting the following build error. line 45: cd: jre1..0_45: No such file or directory

larryhaja commented on 2013-10-16 02:42 (UTC)

yeah, there is no ${_major} variable...only 2 ${_minor} variables.

commented on 2013-10-16 02:22 (UTC)

.47? whitout a 7 first??

kkl2401 commented on 2013-10-13 19:34 (UTC)

Updated.

nicoulaj commented on 2013-10-12 18:40 (UTC)

Can you add a desktop entry for Mission Control ?

student975 commented on 2013-09-14 09:19 (UTC)

Is it a moment to downgrade? I use elasticsearch/lucene :) https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5212

joschi commented on 2013-09-11 18:24 (UTC)

Updated PKGBUILD for Java 7u40: https://github.com/joschi/AUR/blob/40295e12c933eb052959432d4ef790d1f2632aea/jre/PKGBUILD

joschi commented on 2013-09-11 18:24 (UTC)

Updated PKGBUILD for Oracle Java 7u40: https://github.com/joschi/AUR/blob/1abd6f001510d26338fb0ad45a1e659b0cffde37/jdk/PKGBUILD

aloiscochard commented on 2013-09-11 09:16 (UTC)

511ea34e4a42955bc03c28afa4b8f6cf jdk-7u40-linux-x64.tar.gz

Det commented on 2013-08-24 22:31 (UTC)

Yes. JRE (Java Runtime Environment) is a part of JDK (Java Development Kit).

mikes commented on 2013-08-21 10:08 (UTC)

I am trying to install both jdk and jre but jre conflicts with jdk. Is it normal?

Det commented on 2013-08-15 17:19 (UTC)

I blame no one. It's human to make mistakes :).

commented on 2013-08-12 11:07 (UTC)

Apologies - flagged out of date by mistake. Blame my daft fat fingers and lack of sleep :c

Det commented on 2013-07-02 23:33 (UTC)

Jesus fucking Christ..

frio commented on 2013-07-02 22:51 (UTC)

Not so much out of date, but I don't really know how AUR works that well and wanted to flag this as broken -- line 53 of the PKGBUILD, the "exit" probably shouldn't be there ;)

Det commented on 2013-06-27 13:15 (UTC)

No. Jdk does: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jdk/

marco44 commented on 2013-06-27 11:52 (UTC)

When I install jre, I have to deinstall openjdk (seems normal). But then libreoffice complains about missing java-environment. Shouldn't this package provide java-environment ?

kkl2401 commented on 2013-06-23 21:31 (UTC)

Updated.

Det commented on 2013-06-21 12:11 (UTC)

I don't get that even with packer-color. You should probably update it.

matrs commented on 2013-06-20 20:37 (UTC)

installing jre 7.25-1 with packer-color got me this error http://pastebin.com/rx8RrRDr although jre was successfully installed. when i tray to install it using "pacman -U" i got this error: # pacman -U jre-7u25-linux-x64.tar.gz loading packages... error: missing package metadata in jre-7u25-linux-x64.tar.gz error: 'jre-7u25-linux-x64.tar.gz': invalid or corrupted package

matrs commented on 2013-06-20 17:38 (UTC)

installing jre 7.25-1 with packer-color got me this error http://pastebin.com/rx8RrRDr although jre was successfully installed. when i tray to install it using "pacman -U" i got this error: # pacman -U jre-7u25-linux-x64.tar.gz loading packages... error: missing package metadata in jre-7u25-linux-x64.tar.gz error: 'jre-7u25-linux-x64.tar.gz': invalid or corrupted package

Det commented on 2013-06-17 17:25 (UTC)

That single "cat" line is where the problem is, which is that there's no space left in your /tmp, /, whatever. /tmp is mounted in RAM so it's not actually physically located anywhere. "df -h" is gonna show which one doesn't have any space left, if you don't know where you're actually building this thing in (/tmp is the default for AUR tools for non-VCS packages).

commented on 2013-06-17 17:21 (UTC)

I get error. http://pastebin.com/mvJP4WYN

commented on 2013-06-17 17:15 (UTC)

I get error. http://pastebin.com/mvJP4WYN

commented on 2013-06-17 17:11 (UTC)

I get error -> Compressing package... cat: write error: No space left on device bsdtar: Write error ==> ERROR: Failed to create package file. ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jre.

Det commented on 2013-05-21 08:26 (UTC)

That's what it already is, my dear..

nepjua commented on 2013-05-21 00:14 (UTC)

jdk-7u21-linux-x64.tar.gz md5sum 3ceef66377b6d87144b802960f5e715b

Det commented on 2013-05-12 10:52 (UTC)

Don't be :D. Happens to me all the time as well.

FernandoBasso commented on 2013-05-12 10:27 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally flagged the package out of date and can't undo the action. I'm really sorry.

Det commented on 2013-05-02 20:59 (UTC)

And for everything else :).

HLFH commented on 2013-05-02 20:30 (UTC)

The best for Android SDK :)

kkl2401 commented on 2013-04-25 01:21 (UTC)

Updated.

Det commented on 2013-04-23 13:02 (UTC)

That lasted a long time.

Det commented on 2013-04-23 13:01 (UTC)

Our magnificient corporation has put its entire strategical unit to work and afters tens of thousands of man-hours they all agreed to come to one conclusion: their future was at stake. This required rapid actions and their stock was already beginning to fall. They all knew what had to be done and there wasn't much time to it. The entire company rushed into this small room, pushed forward the janitor they considered good cannon fodder and as he pressed the button, silence settled in. It was over. Android phones were already announcing the victory. So we need the --header flag again.

gyurman commented on 2013-04-23 06:27 (UTC)

Error have in md5sum jdk-7u21-linux-x64.tar.gz

Det commented on 2013-04-17 14:33 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll be removing it then. Lol, Oracle gave up because of EasySly. You changed the world, man.

gabrielrcp commented on 2013-04-17 14:28 (UTC)

The download worked fine for me after commenting the line DLAGENTS= ...

Det commented on 2013-04-17 12:53 (UTC)

Done.

commented on 2013-04-17 05:06 (UTC)

Ok I found that derby-network-service is a rc file usin initscriptschema, you can make anithink to migrate this ti a service for systemd? i think that call Exec=/path/to/a/script/that/run/derby and Stop/Halt=/path/to/stop/script and Restart=/Path/to/restart/script can by workaround for this task

Det commented on 2013-04-17 01:27 (UTC)

Seems like we no longer need the DLAGENTS override. Could anybody test, if this is the case for you too?

Det commented on 2013-04-07 20:51 (UTC)

I kind of was thinking something else when I said that, lol. Yeah, but I won't be adding it.

scorici commented on 2013-04-07 20:39 (UTC)

@Det 'lzop' must be in the makedepends=() because it won't build/create package without it, optdepends=() is for additional functionality

Det commented on 2013-04-07 20:05 (UTC)

Yea, I removed that once I realized it'd have to be included in the optdepends=().

scorici commented on 2013-04-07 19:08 (UTC)

-> Compressing package... /usr/bin/makepkg: line 1898: lzop: command not found bsdtar: Write error ==> ERROR: Failed to create package file. ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jdk. ==> Restart building jdk ? [y/N] ==> ---------------------------- ==> makedepends=('lzop')

Det commented on 2013-03-10 20:25 (UTC)

How funny. Your brother was here just a couple of weeks ago.

barton commented on 2013-03-10 20:02 (UTC)

Seems like providing 'java-environment' would fix my update headaches with eclipse. S'pose I'll mod the PKGBUILD and give it a try.

kkl2401 commented on 2013-03-08 00:59 (UTC)

Updated.

igordcard commented on 2013-03-04 23:37 (UTC)

Update 17 is out...

commented on 2013-02-20 11:37 (UTC)

I'm just getting this package for the comments :) Oh and to get pwned by a 3 months old java flaw.

Det commented on 2013-02-19 06:03 (UTC)

Very well.

commented on 2013-02-19 03:51 (UTC)

I found that without "libxslt" the WebView (from JavaFX2) doesn't work.

Det commented on 2013-02-18 16:02 (UTC)

JRE? Why doesn't JRE provide JDK? Who knows. Maybe God was mean.

alex-eri commented on 2013-02-18 15:56 (UTC)

why it not provides java-environment=7 ?

Det commented on 2013-02-02 04:10 (UTC)

Yes. And I just ate a dolphin and invented salt. 1) Not ever once have I heard a paste just "disappearing" from pastebin without the expiration time being left as such. In fact, it seems as if the default choice was "never" 2) This had nothing to do with dead-linking the "answer" and everything to do with just hiding the useless pacman output. 3) This has come up numerous times, ever since I separated jre from jdk over 3 months ago. Had either of you actually tried Googling the output or looking for it right here instead of wondering what just happened we wouldn't have needed this stupid discussion. So just remember: searching for things you want to know helps you find them. I think everyone who has internets knows that.

Rulatir commented on 2013-02-02 00:32 (UTC)

Maybe it's because we've seen one too many a problem-solving thread where someone had posted *the perfect solution* on pastebin (because it had more than 30 LOC), and that pastebin entry had since expired? Things *disappear* from pastebin. Everyone who has internets knows that.

Det commented on 2013-01-18 18:20 (UTC)

I can't figure out why you people keep posting LONG messages in here instead of using Pastebin! Is it because of http://pastebin.com being inaccessible? Nope... Is it because you don't have internets? Nope... What is wrong with you!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

darose commented on 2013-01-18 16:04 (UTC)

Ah yes that worked. I had already tried pacman -Rd. Didn't know the 2nd "d" was needed. Tnx for the help!

gabrielrcp commented on 2013-01-18 16:02 (UTC)

You can do $ pacman -Rdd jre and afterward install jdk. This will uninstall jre ignoring all dependencies. This is not normally recommended but in this case it will be fine, since jdk will provide java-runtime.

darose commented on 2013-01-18 15:39 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to upgrade this package! I previously had jdk and jre installed. I just upgraded jre. Now I'm trying to upgrade jdk. [darose@daroselin jdk]$ sudo pacman -U jdk-7.11-1-x86_64.pkg.tar loading packages... resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... :: jdk and jre are in conflict (java-runtime). Remove jre? [y/N] y Targets (2): jre-7.11-1 [removal] jdk-7.11-1 Total Installed Size: 224.27 MiB Net Upgrade Size: 8.17 MiB Proceed with installation? [Y/n] OK, so it tells me there's a conflict, and that now jdk supercedes jre. Fine. Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y (1/1) checking package integrity [#############################################################################] 100% (1/1) loading package files [#############################################################################] 100% (1/1) checking for file conflicts [#############################################################################] 100% error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/COPYRIGHT exists in filesystem jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/LICENSE exists in filesystem jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME-JAVAFX.txt exists in filesystem jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt exists in filesystem Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded. No good. Maybe I can just uninstall jre first? [darose@daroselin jdk]$ sudo pacman -R jre checking dependencies... error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: android-sdk: requires java-runtime :: antlr2: requires java-runtime :: ec2-api-tools: requires java-runtime :: eclipse-wtp: requires java-runtime>=5 :: frostwire: requires java-runtime :: javacc: requires java-runtime :: jdk: requires jre :: junit: requires java-runtime-headless :: proguard: requires java-runtime :: swt: requires java-runtime>=6 Nope. So then maybe I can uninstall jdk, and then re-install? [darose@daroselin jdk]$ sudo pacman -R jdk checking dependencies... error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: antlr3: requires java-environment :: apache-ant: requires java-environment :: eclipse: requires java-environment :: eclipse-android: requires java-environment>=6 :: tokyocabinet-java: requires java-environment Again nope! How can I do this upgrade?!?!?!?!?

Det commented on 2013-01-15 14:12 (UTC)

@ryenus, because as I said ages ago I grew tired of waiting for two minutes for it to compress.

ryenus commented on 2013-01-15 14:10 (UTC)

why having `PKGEXT=".pkg.tar"`? $ ll ~/.cache/aur/jdk-7.11-1-i686.* ... 225M ... .cache/aur/jdk-7.11-1-i686.pkg.tar ... 68M ... .cache/aur/jdk-7.11-1-i686.pkg.tar.xz Having zipped packages would save much space for all cached packages.

kkl2401 commented on 2013-01-14 07:24 (UTC)

Version bump.

Det commented on 2013-01-04 19:44 (UTC)

Well of course when you say things in the past you can mention any mistake you like!

dapolinario commented on 2013-01-04 19:37 (UTC)

When makepkg is finishing the process of creation, it runs a routine that deletes empty directories, so the directory /etc/.java is erased. I do not know a solution.

Det commented on 2012-12-23 08:34 (UTC)

[x] Comment by a user who decided it was best to avoid the humiliation || 2012-12-23 05:03 > Why do PKGBUILD misses provides=('java-runtime=7')? You must be a detective and everything.

hgabreu commented on 2012-12-22 01:50 (UTC)

Really?? Sorry then... I just build, installed it and ran into the problem. Haven't even read the PKGBUILD :-/

Det commented on 2012-12-22 01:05 (UTC)

But I _have_ included it in the PKGBUILD, my friend.

hgabreu commented on 2012-12-22 00:44 (UTC)

I've had this issue: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/18872 Solved it by creating the folder /etc/.java/.systemPrefs Maybe you could include this on the PKGBUILD. Also, documented here: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4532628

marcinfa commented on 2012-12-21 20:10 (UTC)

Sorry I accidentally flag. I wanted to download the tarball.

Det commented on 2012-12-12 17:32 (UTC)

What do you think?

kyak commented on 2012-12-12 17:31 (UTC)

So you updated the PKGBUILD, why not bump the pkgrel?

Det commented on 2012-12-12 17:20 (UTC)

No it wasn't.

loxley commented on 2012-12-12 14:27 (UTC)

Yeah that solved it for me.

loxley commented on 2012-12-12 14:26 (UTC)

line 46: cd jre1.$_major.0_0$_minor that 0 before $_minor should be removed i think?

loxley commented on 2012-12-12 14:03 (UTC)

==> Starting package()... -> Creating required dirs /tmp/packerbuild-1000/jre/jre/PKGBUILD: line 46: cd: jre1.7.0_010: No such file or directory ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package(). Aborting... The build failed.

commented on 2012-12-12 13:36 (UTC)

there is a typo in PKGBUILD, one zero before $minor package() { msg2 "Creating required dirs" cd jdk1.$_major.0_0$_minor right version package() { msg2 "Creating required dirs" cd jdk1.$_major.0_$_minor

kyak commented on 2012-12-12 12:28 (UTC)

==> Starting package()... -> Creating required dirs /home/user/build/jre/PKGBUILD: line 46: cd: jre1.7.0_010: No such file or directory ==> ERROR: A failure occurred in package(). Aborting...

Det commented on 2012-12-04 10:38 (UTC)

It does. JRE = 'java-runtime', 'java-runtime-headless', 'java-web-start' JDK = 'java-environment' I'm providing all these.

kevku commented on 2012-12-04 10:31 (UTC)

Should’nt this also provide jre? Quite a lot of packages seem to directly depend on jre.

Det commented on 2012-12-02 19:28 (UTC)

Again, there are alternative mirrors in the PKGBUILD.

commented on 2012-12-02 17:42 (UTC)

I get the following error: ERROR: Failure while downloading jdk-7u9-linux-x64.tar.gz Aborting... ==> ERROR: Makepkg was unable to build jdk. It makes no sense... since I've installed another packages from AUR with no problem. Some help will be appreciated. Cheers.

Det commented on 2012-11-25 15:06 (UTC)

You installed with "-dd" as well, didn't you? These two are in conflict because jdk already provides its own bundled JRE that I had been historically just replacing with this. No longer. E: No wait, it's the same drop-in replacement bug that was reported as soon as I de-merged the two. I don't really intend doing anything about it because the installation is not supposed to continue, if the conflicting package could not be removed.

commented on 2012-11-25 14:53 (UTC)

I don't think this is too important, but upon updating I got file conflicts with the license files. Perhaps that can be fixed with an .install file? Like I said, not really important, and a simple pacman -Rdd jdk and then pacman -U pkg works.

Det commented on 2012-11-05 15:03 (UTC)

Well, it's "PKGEXT" and I use it with all the other java packages and google-earth too.

MisterAnderson commented on 2012-11-05 11:53 (UTC)

Yeah sorry I wasn't reporting it to you I just wanted to inform anyone else coming here checking for an answer (only package I know of with a different PKG_EXT).

Det commented on 2012-10-30 22:33 (UTC)

It's an aurget bug: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51908, https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31933

commented on 2012-10-30 22:16 (UTC)

Can not install this version, it stops here..: ==> Extracting Sources... -> Extracting jdk-7u9-linux-x64.tar.gz with bsdtar ==> Entering fakeroot environment... ==> Starting package()... -> Creating required dirs -> Removing the redundancies -> Moving stuff in place -> Symlinking the plugin -> Installing the scripts, confs and .desktops of our own -> Tweaking the javaws .desktop file ==> Tidying install... -> Purging unwanted files... -> Compressing man and info pages... -> Stripping unneeded symbols from binaries and libraries... -> Removing empty directories... ==> Creating package... -> Generating .PKGINFO file... -> Adding install file... -> Compressing package... ==> Leaving fakeroot environment. ==> Finished making: jdk 7.9-2 (Tue Oct 30 23:14:02 CET 2012) :: Discarding sources... :: Installing package... error: : package not found

JohnnyDeacon commented on 2012-10-30 21:25 (UTC)

Ok, solved

Det commented on 2012-10-30 15:20 (UTC)

I mentioned this to brisbin but the way we do things here in the Arch world is preferably by reporting things ourselves - not by through some middleman who first made you see it.

Det commented on 2012-10-30 15:04 (UTC)

Verifies fine here. Your download is corrupt. You could try the alternative mirrors if it's server-sided.

JohnnyDeacon commented on 2012-10-30 14:36 (UTC)

I got this error while installing JDK ==> Making package: jdk 7.9-2 (Tue Oct 30 09:33:46 COT 2012) ==> Checking runtime dependencies... ==> Checking buildtime dependencies... ==> Retrieving Sources... -> Found jdk-7u9-linux-x64.tar.gz -> Found derby-network-server -> Found derby-network-server.conf -> Found java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop -> Found java-policy-settings.desktop -> Found java-visualvm.desktop -> Found javaws-launcher -> Found jdk.csh -> Found jdk.sh ==> Validating source files with md5sums... jdk-7u9-linux-x64.tar.gz ... FAILED derby-network-server ... Passed derby-network-server.conf ... Passed java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop ... Passed java-policy-settings.desktop ... Passed java-visualvm.desktop ... Passed javaws-launcher ... Passed jdk.csh ... Passed jdk.sh ... Passed ==> ERROR: One or more files did not pass the validity check! The build failed.

MisterAnderson commented on 2012-10-30 07:38 (UTC)

I read through the comments and saw note about changing PKG_EXT The change is making it fail with aurget at least to install after compiling.

Det commented on 2012-10-26 13:29 (UTC)

So the plugin is or is not enabled?

kalib commented on 2012-10-26 13:13 (UTC)

Well, I need eclipse for java development. But my bank doesn't recognize my jre. :/ that's quite sad.. because I can't install jre without removing jdk. :/

kkl2401 commented on 2012-10-26 11:00 (UTC)

Yes, it is better to have JDK because it contains useful tools (which JRE doesn't) but it is not necessary because Eclipse has its own Java compiler.

Det commented on 2012-10-26 10:46 (UTC)

http://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse/Installation#Install_a_JVM: "Regardless of your operating system, you will need to install some Java virtual machine (JVM). You may either install a Java Runtime Environment (JRE), or a Java Development Kit (JDK), depending on what you want to do with Eclipse. If you intend to use Eclipse for Java development, then you should install a JDK (the JDK includes--among other useful things--the source code for the standard Java libraries). If you aren't planning to use Eclipse for Java development and want to save some disk space, install a JRE." It shouldn't be an issue, though. The plugin is the same in both JREs.

kkl2401 commented on 2012-10-26 06:58 (UTC)

kalib: Eclipse (as an application) doesn't actually need JDK, it only needs JRE. If eclipse (as a package) requires jdk (as a package), then you should be safely able to modify the PKGBUILD so that it doesn't.

Det commented on 2012-10-25 22:46 (UTC)

Well, it's there. You checked whether the plugin is disabled?

kalib commented on 2012-10-25 20:28 (UTC)

After the last jdk update, my jre have been removed and now my webbank doesn't recognize that I have java. When trying to install jre again (yaourt -S jre) it says that jdk conflicts with jre. But I can't remove jdk because Eclipse needs it. Any tip?

Det commented on 2012-10-25 12:48 (UTC)

And you're welcome for that.

Det commented on 2012-10-25 12:45 (UTC)

@galaux, merge? Erm, I wonder what would be the right way to take your message then because 1) the two _were_ merged, they _aren't_ that anymore and 2) I _have_ explained this so many times it might actually even start to piss me off this tiiiny slightest bit to see people invariably repeating the same question I already answered before it was even asked (damn well even). Seriously, I _just_ quoted to wonder and now you're telling me you have absolutely no idea I did, even though it was the 3rd message from the top. Not even behind the "Show all XX comments" button excuse. Well, credit where it's due, I wouldn't have to do anything _myself_, since it seems like there's inevitably someone else already clarifying it for you guys. But I just can't understand how can somebody come up here and say "I see no reason why this was done" when the answer is _right there_. => The JDK provided JRE is the one meant for development, which is the whole _point_ of this package. <=

hgabreu commented on 2012-10-25 10:22 (UTC)

He did not merge them. JRE was always part of the JDK. He just changed the package info to avoid having everybody download a repeated unnecessary package.

galaux commented on 2012-10-25 08:41 (UTC)

Don't take it wrong but I see no reason nor explanation as to *why* you merged JRE *back* into JDK.

FernandoBasso commented on 2012-10-23 15:45 (UTC)

Thanks.

Det commented on 2012-10-23 14:00 (UTC)

Oh, I am just too nice. FernandoBasso, I included your alternative mirrors.

Det commented on 2012-10-23 12:39 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a reason there's always _some_ dev not really following through with the big updates I make here. @wonder, this is not unknown. It's just buried in the comment history you saw not essential enough to go through. This is what it said anyway (which, by the way I posted at the _exact_ same time I uploaded -2 and have been clarifying ever since): "Since jdk-devel seems to be working just fine, I'll proceed with this. As some of you already know, JDK already provides its own debug JRE, which historically I've just been replacing with the regular one and making it depend on it. But this is no longer the case, my friends. From now on this package will be both providing and thus conflicting with jre. This way you no longer have to download both upon every new release. We'll see how it goes." @FernandoBasso, the only thing I could possibly do is to change the source to the http://uni-smr.ac.ru/ one. It would be your job to complain to Oracle for the condition of their independent servers when CLI tools are being used. @kkl2401, that's not entirely how it went, as my quote tells. At the time I actually _replaced_ JDK's /opt/java/jre folder with that of JRE's. Libattach.so and libsaproc.so are the only two files added in JDK's JRE. Those were actually the only two files I had to pull to make the JDK stuff like 'jconsole' to work. The rest is just added debug symbols.

kkl2401 commented on 2012-10-23 10:22 (UTC)

So? jdk used to depend on jre. If you installed jdk, you had more or less the same files on your disk, only they were in two packages. I for one am glad that now I don't have to update two packages from AUR but only one.

wonder commented on 2012-10-23 10:14 (UTC)

for years we had jre and jdk. for some unknown reason, you decided to include jre in jdk.

FernandoBasso commented on 2012-10-22 23:53 (UTC)

100 92.8M 100 92.8M 0 0 77533 0 0:20:55 0:20:55 --:--:-- 49068 ==> ERROR: Failure while downloading jdk-7u9-linux-i586.tar.gz Aborting... notice: jdk failed while building, remove source files (/home/nando/Aurget_Files/jdk)? [Y/n] Y warning: package jdk failed to build and won't be installed. :: Retrieving source tarball from AUR... For some reason, I always get this error and have to manually download the package...

Det commented on 2012-10-20 16:18 (UTC)

To the last one: Yes. This provides all the virtual packages that jre does ('java-runtime=7' 'java-runtime-headless=7' 'java-web-start=7') plus the distinct one of its own ('java-environment=7'). Every app that worked before will keep on doing so.

nostalgix commented on 2012-10-20 12:01 (UTC)

@Det Oh. And what about packages that depend on jre? Is there a way to fix those dependencies somehow? Or shouldn't I care about that because the packages will still work when I replaced jre with jdk?

Det commented on 2012-10-19 20:54 (UTC)

@nostalgix, because you were _supposed_ to do so. The whole idea of this bump was to get _rid_ of jre.

EgidioCaprino commented on 2012-10-19 19:21 (UTC)

I solved, sorry. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1178179#p1178179

nostalgix commented on 2012-10-19 19:14 (UTC)

I don't get it. I now removed jre to update jdk. But now I can install the new jre either, because still jdk and jre conflict.

EgidioCaprino commented on 2012-10-19 06:30 (UTC)

I cannot install it. I get this error: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=150975

Det commented on 2012-10-18 21:22 (UTC)

No, JRE is for running, JDK for also debugging and developing. The packages upstream didn't change a thing. The only difference in the JDK provided JRE is that it includes things like debug symbols (meant for development).

commented on 2012-10-18 20:52 (UTC)

outside all, jre are...for view web apps and jdk the debug and other progrs like javaws, but now jdk provide all neded for jre and jdk right?????

commented on 2012-10-18 20:50 (UTC)

pacman -Rdd jre, remove jre but not they dependency or depen-on this one

spsf64 commented on 2012-10-18 20:07 (UTC)

I was not the one who took the vote... but will vote right now! Thank you Det for your hard work on keeping these java packages up to date!

Det commented on 2012-10-18 16:34 (UTC)

Ahh, of course. Yeah, well that's the only way it can be done. Makepkg doesn't support drop-in replacing packages. E: Or does it actually, I dunno :D. At least if you remove those files it works.

silent commented on 2012-10-18 16:19 (UTC)

Yes, yaourt asked me about the conflict and jre should have been removed completely. It is not nice to force removal as 33 packages depend on jre, but OK.

Det commented on 2012-10-18 16:18 (UTC)

Pfft.. but it doesn't make sense because first off, jre actually _conflicts_ with this one now (so you shouldn't be able to even get that far) and secondly, it's just a _symlink_, which should be removed before upgrading _anyway_ so in what point could it possibly convert itself into a folder? I just tried installing jre and jdk 7.9-1 back and the -2 upgrade went just fine. I remember running into this problem at some point yesterday, though, but still no idea what's causing it.

nicoulaj commented on 2012-10-18 16:07 (UTC)

jre. You have to force remove jre before upgrading jdk: sudo pacman -Rdd jre

Det commented on 2012-10-18 15:55 (UTC)

Uhh.. what package are those owned by (pacman -Qo)?

silent commented on 2012-10-18 15:52 (UTC)

error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/COPYRIGHT exists in filesystem jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/LICENSE exists in filesystem jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME-JAVAFX.txt exists in filesystem jdk: /usr/share/licenses/jdk/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt exists in filesystem

Det commented on 2012-10-18 14:14 (UTC)

Who took his vote from this pacakge?! GIVE IT BACK.

Det commented on 2012-10-18 14:13 (UTC)

And to inform you guys too, I've now included PKGEXT=".pkg.tar" in this package because even on my 6-core system the compression still took almost two minutes. The downside of it is that the size also increased from 69 megabytes to 222, though. So happy HDD shoppings and naggings to make me change it back.

Det commented on 2012-10-18 14:09 (UTC)

Just informing you guys too. Since jdk-devel seems to be working just fine, I've done the same thing with jdk. As some of you already know, JDK already provides its own debug JRE, which historically I've just been replacing with this one and making it depend on this. But this is no longer the case, my friends. From now on the jdk package will be both providing and thus conflicting with this one. This way the jdk users no longer have to download both upon every new release. We'll see how it goes. Also, on a delightful note I've included PKGEXT=".pkg.tar" in this package to speed up the damn compression (which on my 6-core system still took almost a minute). The downside of it is that the size also increased from 30 megabytes to 127. So happy HDD shoppings and naggings to make me change it back.

Det commented on 2012-10-18 13:55 (UTC)

Since jdk-devel seems to be working just fine, I'll proceed with this. As some of you already know, JDK already provides its own debug JRE, which historically I've just been replacing with the regular one and making it depend on it. But this is no longer the case, my friends. From now on this package will be both providing and thus conflicting with jre. This way you no longer have to download both upon every new release. We'll see how it goes.

Det commented on 2012-10-16 20:29 (UTC)

Yeah. Actually it's a git repository.

giniu commented on 2012-10-16 19:39 (UTC)

Please add provides java-web-start where appropriate, see https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31595 for reference - official openjdk (icedtea) packages now provide this (in svn). Thanks for maintaining this package btw!

giniu commented on 2012-10-16 19:39 (UTC)

Please add provides java-web-start where appropriate, see https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31595 for reference - official openjdk (icedtea) packages now provide this (in svn). Thanks for maintaining this package btw!

Det commented on 2012-09-07 13:21 (UTC)

Just uploaded jre-/jdk-devel for those as eager as me to get their ugly hands on the new Java 8 snapshots. E: They conflict with this package, though. Lost my nerve trying to make them not do so after finding out that I could not.

Det commented on 2012-08-30 22:13 (UTC)

You would.

jjacky commented on 2012-08-30 22:09 (UTC)

Considering your use of DLAGENTS, I'd say it might be good to add curl as makedepends.

akurei commented on 2012-08-30 20:27 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response update! <3

Det commented on 2012-08-30 20:06 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do these things on my own anyway.

Manouchehri commented on 2012-08-30 19:49 (UTC)

Updated PKGBUILD for 7u7: http://sprunge.us/AbSA

Manouchehri commented on 2012-08-30 19:48 (UTC)

Updated PKGBUILD for 7u7: http://sprunge.us/QNWi

iiiypuk commented on 2012-08-23 10:09 (UTC)

Thank you!

Det commented on 2012-08-23 09:58 (UTC)

Yeah it does. Use the cookie flag.

iiiypuk commented on 2012-08-23 09:48 (UTC)

The link does not work. http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/7u6-b24/jdk-7u6-linux-i586.tar.gz

Det commented on 2012-08-23 09:07 (UTC)

To comment?

iiiypuk commented on 2012-08-23 09:06 (UTC)

Unauthorized Request

Det commented on 2012-08-20 11:07 (UTC)

For a week xD. Well, you can always manually get it from here, if the oracle site isn't playing along: http://uni-smr.ac.ru/archive/dev/java/JRE/oracle/7/ It's probably just the server you're being redirected to again.

FernandoBasso commented on 2012-08-20 10:58 (UTC)

Error downloading the file. I've been trying for a week. https://gist.github.com/3219413

kkl2401 commented on 2012-08-18 04:43 (UTC)

Version bump.

Det commented on 2012-08-09 19:28 (UTC)

Okay lybin, may I ask you _why_ do you think it's out of date? Because, the fact is, it _isn't_.

kkl2401 commented on 2012-08-04 19:00 (UTC)

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

Det commented on 2012-07-26 10:23 (UTC)

So why am _I_ the first guy you're coming after?

dront78 commented on 2012-07-26 05:36 (UTC)

there is a conflict installing jre after jre6 the same time in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libnpjp2.so

Det commented on 2012-07-25 07:51 (UTC)

The name of the tarball didn't change. The size did. It would've been enough to just remove the old one. Don't even understand how would you possibly _have_ to regenerate the md5sums that are already there.

FernandoBasso commented on 2012-07-24 13:05 (UTC)

I had to manually download the .gz file with: curl -vfLC - --retry 3 --retry-delay 3 -O --header "Cookie: gpw_e24=h" http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/7u5-b05/jdk-7u5-linux-i586.tar.gz I also had to generate md5sum for the .gz file and place the md5sum key in the first line of md5sums array in the pkgbuild.

Det commented on 2012-07-19 07:12 (UTC)

Do you know the actual source Chrome is checking the latest plugin build from? I'm not on Arch all the time so it'd be easier, if there was a single page to get the full version string of the latest version. Even firefox thinks it's fine: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ The release notes section only shows the version of that _specific_ release: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u5-relnotes-1653274.html E: Actually Chrome is still thinking I need to "Download Critical Security Update" in chrome://plugins, despite the fact that I already friggin' got it.

cpatrick08 commented on 2012-07-19 05:32 (UTC)

update 5 build 06 is out http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/7u5-b06/jre-7u5-linux-i586.tar.gz md5sum 621131c104d77c6ca5e58784861dd060 http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/7u5-b06/jre-7u5-linux-x64.tar.gz md5sum 4c8850b82a536480cddd771012426f1b

Malix commented on 2012-07-14 19:19 (UTC)

noneio: Dependencies jre libx11 install jre from aur first.

commented on 2012-07-14 19:16 (UTC)

» noneio╺─╸[java]; makepkg -s ==> Making package: jdk 7.5-1 (Sat Jul 14 13:57:05 EDT 2012) ==> Checking runtime dependencies... ==> Installing missing dependencies... error: target not found: jre

Det commented on 2012-06-26 09:04 (UTC)

Correction: _was_ a small bug in jre.csh.

commented on 2012-06-26 08:56 (UTC)

There is small bug in jre.csh file, setenv must not contain "=".

Det commented on 2012-06-23 21:19 (UTC)

No, I mean tame, as in "unwild".

Osleg commented on 2012-06-23 21:18 (UTC)

Still correct. Anyway, thank you for your assist, have JDK and can install jython now :) Tnx :)

Det commented on 2012-06-23 21:17 (UTC)

Tame guesses are worthless.

Osleg commented on 2012-06-23 21:14 (UTC)

[...] * Connected to download.oracle.com (58.27.22.9) port 80 (#1) [...] > Host: download.oracle.com [...] I guess my wild guess was correct :)

Det commented on 2012-06-23 21:00 (UTC)

Feels so dumb when you don't even think of that. So out of curiosity, what's the ip of it when you do: curl -vfLC - --retry 3 --retry-delay 3 -O --header "Cookie: gpw_e24=h" http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/7u5-b05/jdk-7u5-linux-i586.tar.gz For me it says: [...] * Connected to (nil) (213.248.111.17) port 80 (#0) [...] > Host: download.oracle.com [...]

Osleg commented on 2012-06-23 20:49 (UTC)

a wild guess - oracle redirect me to a server which closer to my current location and it down currently. Other wild guess - my ISP blocking <b>only</b> 64bit pkg of jdk... But i think first one is more likely to be true :)

Det commented on 2012-06-23 20:44 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I got time. But just letting you know that I still can download the 64-bit one just fine so I'm not quite sure what's going on up there in your end.

Osleg commented on 2012-06-23 20:41 (UTC)

Oh looks like we posted ~ at same time :) Thanks for the link, downloading it now :)

Osleg commented on 2012-06-23 20:39 (UTC)

I'm sorry i bothered you, looks like oracle have issues with x86_64 package. Was trying to download i586 and it worked just fine but 64bit package gives me connection reset. I guess i just have to wait till they fix it. >_<

Det commented on 2012-06-23 20:36 (UTC)

That's interesting. You can download the file with your browser, right?: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jdk7-downloads-1637583.html Accept the license, download the tarball, place it in $startdir (the folder containing the PKGBUILD) and build. You don't have to touch the PKGBUILD. If you can't download it even then (eg. even access the site), then there's something wrong between you and Oracle. In that case just get it from here: http://uni-smr.ac.ru/archive/dev/java/SDKs/sun/j2se/7/

Osleg commented on 2012-06-23 20:14 (UTC)

Downloading with curl works fine both for ftp and http but not for jdk, could you possible assist me of how to modify PKGBUILD to feed him the file manualy?

Det commented on 2012-06-23 20:03 (UTC)

Works fine here. You scared the sh*t outta me. I did some Googling and that might be caused by some problem in your network infrastructure too (firewall, etc.). You should try downloading some other files from FTP/HTTP servers (with curl) to pinpoint what's wrong. Oracle servers work fine (at least they do now).

Osleg commented on 2012-06-23 17:19 (UTC)

Cannot install JDK, curl failing with: -> Downloading jdk-7u5-linux-x64.tar.gz... % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- 0:00:13 --:--:-- 0 curl: (52) Empty reply from server

Det commented on 2012-06-18 20:13 (UTC)

Always happy to have these comments.

spsf64 commented on 2012-06-18 01:09 (UTC)

Dear Det; Just writing to say a HUGE THANK YOU! This java-oracle package made me change to archlinux forever. For some online banking this original oracle is a must.. Keep up the good work! Regards

DBError commented on 2012-06-10 17:29 (UTC)

Oh, disregard that. I thought java-environment was used to run .jars, not compile java source. (because netbeans depends on it and I'm not using it for java programming)

Det commented on 2012-06-06 12:14 (UTC)

I don't.

DBError commented on 2012-06-06 01:30 (UTC)

I think 'java-environment=7' should get added to the provides

commented on 2012-05-08 23:51 (UTC)

not I see the /opt directory nd in my system jre6 is intaled in /opt/java6/jre and developers of java app need both at the same thime for testing

Det commented on 2012-05-07 10:01 (UTC)

Just getting you guys caught up too that we can now download the jre tarballs straight from the Oracle site by defining the cookie through DLAGENT. And yes, credit goes to EasySly.

Det commented on 2012-05-07 10:00 (UTC)

Because it's installed in /opt/java/jre and I didn't figure people were still using the old jre6, k???? On a lighter note, we can now download the jre tarballs straight from the Oracle site by defining the cookie through DLAGENTS. Cool, huh? The credit from this goes to EasySly. I already tested this with my friend and he said it worked just fine.

commented on 2012-05-07 02:27 (UTC)

jre6 is instaled in /opt/java6/jre and jre7 (this) is intalled in /opt/java7/jre, right? in this case, why jre7 (this) conflict w jre6 if both are installed in differents paths????

Det commented on 2012-05-04 11:54 (UTC)

So I guess this is a 'left' issue for my part, eh?: ┌┌(det@Archlinux)┌(424/pts/0)┌(01:12pm:05/04/12)┌- └┌(%:~)┌- ls -l /usr/share/applications/java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 168 May 4 10:31 /usr/share/applications/java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop I don't know what's wrong with your system (or the build for that matter) because I still can't reproduce that here, but updated anyway. Also you don't need to use the word 'please', as long as it's something sane you're asking.

seblu commented on 2012-05-04 09:58 (UTC)

Right issues: $ ll /usr/share/applications/java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop -rw------- 1 root root 168 2012-05-03 16:15 /usr/share/applications/java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop please use install with right in your PKGBUILD instead of cp

Det commented on 2012-05-02 12:56 (UTC)

The http://uni-smr.ac.ru guys have caught up.

Det commented on 2012-05-02 12:56 (UTC)

The http://uni-smr.ac.ru guys have caught up.

Det commented on 2012-05-01 18:39 (UTC)

Sigh. The bloody download isn't this way because I wanna respect Oracle. It's this way because _there is no other way_.

nickoe commented on 2012-05-01 15:31 (UTC)

Where in the license does oracle state that the user has to download it directly and manually accepting the license? http://java.com/license

sjakub commented on 2012-04-30 20:13 (UTC)

I just tried both jre and jdk on a machine that was not updated yet. There were no problems, and the process is actually really nice. The loop was indeed a great idea and it works awesome. Thank you and keep up the good work! :) (As a side note, I can't believe how arrogant company Oracle is :/ )

Det commented on 2012-04-30 14:37 (UTC)

That's the spirit. You're welcome.

commented on 2012-04-30 01:55 (UTC)

Working well now. Thanks for the fast fix! :) ~Eric

Det commented on 2012-04-29 17:17 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. I added a $SRCDEST support, but since $XDG_DOWNLOAD_DIR is seemingly only set after running 'xdg-user-dirs-update' (and even then it points to $HOME/Downloads by default), I'm not gonna bother with it unless somebody starts complaining. The PKGBUILD is already fat as shit.

xduugu commented on 2012-04-29 14:31 (UTC)

> Not really following you there. > > 1) $SRCDEST is for makepkg-downloaded sources, right? Does anybody actually download their other stuff in there? I prefer to store all the sources in one place and it's annoying to have to copy the source back to the location where I downloaded it the first time when I rebuild a package. Since the source is not in the source array, makepkg does not look for the source in SRCDEST anymore on its own. > 2) It's simpler to have the source in the same directory for rebuilds. Why would you wanna symlink it e.g. from your desktop? I usually remove the old package directory, but like to keep the source for the case of pkgrel increments. It doesn't matter if it is a symlink or a regular file in srcdir, but the source should be kept in its original location. > 3) Also is that the same thing with $XDG_DOWNLOAD_DIR? Because I don't have any power over where the user's gonna download the source with his browser. Afaik, that's the default download location for firefox and chrome/-ium.

Det commented on 2012-04-29 14:01 (UTC)

@sjakub, I did the file name thing you mentioned. The re-request thing _I_ mentioned proved to be easy as hell by using an until loop. Bash is actually a pretty nice language for things like this.

Det commented on 2012-04-29 13:06 (UTC)

Well, libsaproc.so and libattach.so (located in /opt/java/jre/lib/$_arch, not /lib) are both jdk files so that's still quite interesting.

commented on 2012-04-29 03:00 (UTC)

D'oh, I'm getting mixed up. The one I installed last night must have been jre, which goes through a very similar process (and the handling is the same since you maintain both). It was the one that was throwing the errors, which it said had to do with versioning conflicts. I think one of the ones it had me remove was libattach.so? I can't remember, as it was late and I didn't pay it much attention.

Det commented on 2012-04-29 02:20 (UTC)

Well, it's not .rpm, as I'm also already mentioning the tarball thing ("[...] download the tarball (.tar.gz) yourself"). The arch thing is sort of matter of opinion. It's pretty easy to just do `uname -m`, but of course even easier not to. I'll think it over. I'll probably also make the user-intervention part to re-ask for the tarball if it wasn't found, instead of just ending the build. E: Also, sorry about getting a bit defensive there the last time. I figured you thought it was all my fault, when you mentioned the manual download. Actually, it seems like heftig was the only one who did. E2: @palintropos, no, you don't have to apologize, if you have a genuine problem. But the thing is that I don't understand any of it. First of, this package doesn't install _anything_ to /lib and I can't think of a single case when an error would instruct you to remove something from there. About the second issue, you either downloaded a wrong package (e.g. jre, not jdk) or you really just don't have it there.

commented on 2012-04-29 02:03 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to come back with a problem, and have no intention of rescinding my compliment, but some things do appear to be wrong. For instance, I had to manually delete two .so files from /lib. That wasn't difficult and it told me which two (an error, not the install script), but couldn't the installer do that? Furthermore, once I removed those and followed the instructions, it seemed to update fine. However, when I did a full update again, jdk came up as needing to be upgraded, and it no longer finds the file even if I place it in the correct directory in /tmp.

sjakub commented on 2012-04-28 23:03 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize the license requirement. And that's not your fault, just Oracle's stupidity :/ The file name - it's possible to figure that out, but since the script knows the name it's looking for why doesn't it just display it? It could be rpm, and if you're dealing with several machines with different archs you have to stop and think which one it is. All of that could be avoided by adding that name to the message.

Det commented on 2012-04-28 10:19 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. First compliment I guess.

commented on 2012-04-28 03:33 (UTC)

I actually just wanted to stop by and comment on how well I thought it handled that transition. That was a stupid move on Oracle's part, EULAs suck, and yet that was handled rather gracefully (and quickly!). Well done :-)

Det commented on 2012-04-27 23:46 (UTC)

My friend. It's more ridiculous to go run off with your mouth about a change without understanding why was it done in the first place.

heftig commented on 2012-04-27 23:16 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Please revert to having the package download the JDK itself. You're only providing a script to package the JDK. You're not redistributing it.

Det commented on 2012-04-27 22:36 (UTC)

Not really following you there. 1) $SRCDEST is for makepkg-downloaded sources, right? Does anybody actually download their other stuff in there? 2) It's simpler to have the source in the same directory for rebuilds. Why would you wanna symlink it e.g. from your desktop? 3) Also is that the same thing with $XDG_DOWNLOAD_DIR? Because I don't have any power over where the user's gonna download the source with his browser.

xduugu commented on 2012-04-27 22:14 (UTC)

Imo, you should also look in $SRCDEST for the source and smylinking the source should be enough instead of moving it. You could also rely on $XDG_DOWNLOAD_DIR instead of several hardcoded paths.

Det commented on 2012-04-27 18:37 (UTC)

K, that should be it. Everybody happy now?

Det commented on 2012-04-27 17:21 (UTC)

No, forget it, I misunderstood. I'll do that. But my point's still valid, don't repost long texts behind a link in here.

jjacky commented on 2012-04-27 17:08 (UTC)

Little nitpicking: the way you did it, after making the package & cleaning, trying to make it again would fail on the bsdtar call, because the file/symlink isn't in src. Would be better if the symlink was created if the file is in startdir but not src; e.g: if [ ! -f "jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz" ]; then if [ ! -f "../jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz" ]; then # look in common (download) locations, and move it in startdir for i in /tmp ~/{Desktop,Downloads}; do if [ -f "$i/jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz" ]; then msg2 "Moving jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz from $i/ to $startdir/" mv "$i/jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz" "$startdir/" break fi done if [ ! -f "../jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz" ]; then error "Tarball not found" exit 1 fi fi # create symlink in src ln -s ../jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz jre-$_pkg-linux-$_arch2.tar.gz fi

Det commented on 2012-04-27 16:57 (UTC)

You realize the license needs to be accepted first, right? Also, I think the file name thing is pretty clear. It's not windows or solaris and it's not .rpm. E: Also, the permission thing was fixed long before seblu mentioned it. I just don't bump the pkgrel, if that's all there is.

Det commented on 2012-04-27 16:43 (UTC)

@jjacky, true. Done. @berbae, because of the discussion you didn't read. @sjakub, same thing. Also, please don't post the same thing in both places.

sjakub commented on 2012-04-27 16:35 (UTC)

It could also say what is the file name it is looking for (to easily find it on the download webpage). Also, it would be nice if it accepted /tmp as the download location as well.

sjakub commented on 2012-04-27 16:31 (UTC)

Det: Things like that (permissions) should be done by the PKGBUILD. Also, it looks like now it is required to download the package manually. It would be helpful if it actually said what is the file name you're expected to download.

berbae commented on 2012-04-27 16:24 (UTC)

Why didn't you name the package jre 7u4 as this is the official name? (the previous package was jre 7u3)

jjacky commented on 2012-04-27 15:48 (UTC)

Besides the little bug mentionned, I would suggest a couple of things (that could also be applied to jdk) : - use /tmp instead of $startdir as download location (to move the file from) - move the file in $startdir, and then create a symlink in src/ -- this would allow to easily keep the file in startdir, use the cleaning (that removes src/) and still be able to re-build the package without anything needed. Here's a PKGBUILD implementing this: https://gist.github.com/2510259

commented on 2012-04-27 15:22 (UTC)

This is the fixed version: https://gist.github.com/2510111/de86a1b1602a8c62ebfdf1e51f07c550c46feeec

rtimush commented on 2012-04-27 14:59 (UTC)

7.4-1 doesn't pick up tar.gz stored in ~/Downloads because of double '~/' (jdk package does)

Det commented on 2012-04-27 13:50 (UTC)

7u4's here then. The user's gotta download the package himself for now. Guess the http://uni-smr.ac.ru guy(s) will pull it tomorrow or later today.

Det commented on 2012-04-17 11:53 (UTC)

You think Oracle cares? I like the 7.1/2 idea, though. Simpler than just stating the build number and better than raising the epoch.

davidovitch commented on 2012-04-17 10:32 (UTC)

From the pacman man page: Alphanumeric: 1.0a < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0 < 1.0.a < 1.0.1 Numeric: 1 < 1.0 < 1.1 < 1.1.1 < 1.2 < 2.0 < 3.0.0 Why does Oracle violates this principle by stating that 7 < 7u < 7u2 ? Maybe we need to convince them to follow a pacman compatible approach :-) Would a sensible alternative be 7 < 7.1u < 7.2u ? On the other hand, the jre7-openjdk version number also looks a bit archaic: 7.b147_2.1-3 (In case I am stating the obvious, apologies, I am trying to grasp how pacman judges what the newest version is)

Det commented on 2012-04-16 21:26 (UTC)

Yeah, that seriously sucks (pacman probably considers this thing to be some alpha/beta/pre version). I guess I could bump the epoch with the next update.

davidovitch commented on 2012-04-15 19:37 (UTC)

Maybe it's my ignorance, but it today I noticed that yaourt and pacman considered the new version number 7u3-1 as a downgrade compared to the previous 7-3, so it never got updated until I told so.

EasySly commented on 2012-04-06 21:48 (UTC)

Please note: Bug/FR for downloading files with some specific behavior was commited to https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29316. You can vote for this or use patch to able to install jre6/jdk6 via AUR. This path also will fix the possible issue with jre/jdk if it will use oracle site. Thanks, Vladimir

commented on 2012-04-05 00:09 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. Apologies for giving bad advice...

Det commented on 2012-04-04 20:36 (UTC)

Yeah, uh, no, that shouldn't be done. This doesn't provide java-environment exactly because it doesn't provide it. If something needs java-environment it means that it needs a jdk package. Not this one.

commented on 2012-04-03 21:52 (UTC)

I think that adding java-environment would cause problems to people who are also wanting to install the package jdk, as that is currently set to provide java-environment. If you really want jre to provide it, why not add it to the pkgbuild on your local machine? That way, you get java-environment and it allows those who are using this package in order to also install jdk to continue happily.

Det commented on 2012-04-02 16:49 (UTC)

Because! >:O

tanuva commented on 2012-04-02 16:47 (UTC)

Why?

Det commented on 2012-04-02 13:47 (UTC)

No.

tanuva commented on 2012-04-02 13:46 (UTC)

Could you add a provides=java-environment? Otherwise eclipse and tuxguitar for example will still request some other jre that provides this.

Det commented on 2012-03-27 12:10 (UTC)

The hell with them.

commented on 2012-03-27 09:44 (UTC)

It seems Oracle have changed their downloads so you now need to accept the license before it'll let you download.. This PKGBUILD just downloads a HTML file saying the license hasn't been accepted and the build fails. I've manually downloaded the jre-7u3-linux-x64.tar.gz from http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre-7u3-download-1501631.html, put it in the build folder and the package builds/installs. Cheers

Det commented on 2012-03-09 09:30 (UTC)

So make them?

Det commented on 2012-03-09 09:26 (UTC)

Yeah. Sure. Could've. Just didn't wanna rebuild just because of that.

seblu commented on 2012-03-09 09:26 (UTC)

/usr/share/applications/java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop and /usr/share/applications/java-visualvm.desktop are not world redable.

kyak commented on 2012-03-09 09:07 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I just wish you would update the minor version of the package, so that 'cower' would catch that the package is updated :) Thanks again!

Det commented on 2012-03-08 11:23 (UTC)

Lol. Yeah. Apparently.

karol_007 commented on 2012-03-08 10:34 (UTC)

@Det http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/rhino/ Dependencies: java-runtime-headless (openjdk6, jre7-openjdk-headless) It's a circular dependency.

Det commented on 2012-03-08 10:20 (UTC)

Already pleased to announce that I've done so. E: also, "rhino" doesn't require 'java-runtime-headless'. "jre7-openjdk-headless" requires "rhino".

Det commented on 2012-03-08 10:16 (UTC)

Just updated jre. No worries.

klaudrup commented on 2012-03-08 09:23 (UTC)

Hi again, I solved my problem by removing the "rhino" package. According to pacman it was installed as a dependency on another package, but that package was no longer installed so I could safely remove it. Wasn't that obvious, so someone else might find that information useful.

klaudrup commented on 2012-03-08 09:13 (UTC)

Hi there, When attempting to do an update on my machine that has this package installed (unfortunately I cannot use openjdk), pacman wants to install jre7-openjdk-headless. As far as I understand, the "java-runtime-headless" package is the java runtime without some GUI libs etc., which means that the full JRE should provide headless as well. Should this package be update to provide "java-runtime-headless"?

kyak commented on 2012-03-08 05:35 (UTC)

at least 'rhino' requires java-runtime-headless. Could you please update this package soon, because now rhino pulls jre7-openjdk-headless, which obviously conflicts with jre?

Det commented on 2012-03-07 23:37 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. I can make this provide it but as long as nothing even needs it I ain't gonna bother with the split. The J2REDIR/xdg-icon-resource stuff in the .install's and the .(c)sh's could be updated a bit, though. It's just that I'm downloading porn with Windows so I can't actually do it without people going nuts about the 777 permissions.

Det commented on 2012-03-06 21:16 (UTC)

True. I'll think it over tomorrow (whether/how to split this thing or just provide it). Currently nothing requires it, except 'jre7-openjdk' itself, though (never heard of a "non GUI" Java program anyway).

xduugu commented on 2012-03-06 20:02 (UTC)

I guess this package should also provide the new generic 'java-runtime-headless'. See https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/java7-openjdk&id=8a09699ad49dd7e7e755ef77920461261a925220

Det commented on 2012-01-21 13:11 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a jdk file and I've fixed that a long time ago. Just rebuild it.

seblu commented on 2012-01-21 12:07 (UTC)

Invalid right on this file: -rw------- 1 root root 291 2012-01-20 22:03 /usr/share/applications/java-visualvm.desktop

Det commented on 2012-01-13 04:53 (UTC)

Oh, shut up.

karol_007 commented on 2012-01-13 04:37 (UTC)

@Det "And deliver us from java ..." :P

Det commented on 2012-01-13 04:23 (UTC)

I wonder if I _just_ mentioned this in the jdk comments section. Click the *Show all 26 comments* button and find your salvation.

ultramancool commented on 2012-01-13 04:15 (UTC)

Annoying dependency problem, installing this and the jdk over openjdk6 doesn't work - openjdk6 satisfies both java-runtime and java-environment while jre satisfies java-runtime only and jdk satisfies java-environment only. If you have packages installed already that depend on both (eclipse in my case) you need to removed the dependency on jre from the jdk, build them both separately and then install them both at once. Is there some way you can fix this?

Det commented on 2012-01-12 09:50 (UTC)

Actually I already told this in the jre comment section a while back. Just gotta click *Show all 24 comments*: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51908&comments=all But glad I got to see karol's response too.

karol_007 commented on 2012-01-12 03:48 (UTC)

@wallacecomputer It's in the pacman's man page and 'pacman -Rh' has it too. The man page doesn't have a literal '-dd' anywhere but it says "Specify this option twice to skip all dependency checks." pacman devs want to keep it that way (a bit hidden) because they say people overuse this option and break their systems (and whine about it to the devs).

commented on 2012-01-12 02:55 (UTC)

Just a quick NOTE/Tip for anyone trying to replace openjdk and having problems. Run ( sudo pacman -Rdd jre7-openjdk ) to remove it! Had to search for 20 minutes to figure that one out..............lol Peace.............Arch

Det commented on 2012-01-07 16:16 (UTC)

Mistake from my previous cosmetic update. Fixed now.

commented on 2012-01-07 15:39 (UTC)

VisualVM doesn't work: java.lang.UnsatisfiedLinkError: no attach in java.library.path at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadLibrary(Unknown Source) libattach.so is missing. WTF?! # tar xfv /tmp/jdk-7-linux-x64.tar.gz jdk1.7.0/jre/lib/amd64/libattach.so jdk1.7.0/jre/lib/amd64/libattach.so # [root@server lib]# cp jdk1.7.0/jre/lib/amd64/libattach.so /opt/java/jre/lib/amd64/ (via https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1037562#p1037562)

nicoulaj commented on 2012-01-05 19:10 (UTC)

For those interested, I have created a rc.d daemon package for jstatd (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=55288).

Det commented on 2011-12-29 08:05 (UTC)

It's what I do.

cro commented on 2011-12-29 04:30 (UTC)

I wasn't here for a while ... it seems the pkgbuild (and also jdk) improved a lot. Thanks for the good work, Det!

Det commented on 2011-12-21 16:13 (UTC)

Didn't need to. See my response in the 'jdk' side.

Det commented on 2011-12-21 16:12 (UTC)

I included the missing two libs from the 'jre' folder in this package. Rebuild if you need them (won't force anybody else to).

commented on 2011-12-21 13:30 (UTC)

Does not work jconsole (java-monitoring-and-management-console.desktop) - no connect - error Use the JRE from the jdk-7u2-linux-x64.tar.gz. For JDK not used JRE from the jre-7u2-linux-x64.tar.gz.

commented on 2011-12-21 12:33 (UTC)

use JRE from jdk-7u2-linux-i586.tar.gz and jdk-7u2-linux-x64.tar.gz. Tranks..

Det commented on 2011-11-28 15:45 (UTC)

Ok. Done here too.

Det commented on 2011-11-27 21:25 (UTC)

"Updated". I'll clean up the PKGBUILD tomorrow (still uses lynx, etc).

Det commented on 2011-11-27 21:09 (UTC)

Updated, and did everything else already mentioned.

Atsutane commented on 2011-11-27 20:42 (UTC)

JDK/JRE are no VCS packages, so it's a fix version they download, makepkg output as "evidence" is completely useless. Please update the package properly and check the upstream site for updates.

Det commented on 2011-11-27 19:04 (UTC)

Chromium-browser-bin uses continuous builds of Chromium - the same way firefox-nightly uses continuous nightlies of Firefox. The only difference being that Google names the builds according to the build version - Firefox according to the actual version number. Thus, if one is to create a decent package for the continuous chromium builds, he or she should have a package looking for the latest build number - whether or not the pkgver shown in AUR is the actual latest build number or, as in this case, something like "LATEST" is irrelevant. It's the maintainer's call and the current implementation is simpler. It's NOT the case here. So no, "7.latest" would not make me happy. JRE is not a continuous build project. It's a project with clear different releases. First there was "7", now there was "7u1". The next one is going to be... that's right, "7u2". Maybe you should just give this package up. You still haven't "pulled" the changes I suggested 2 days ago anyway.

Det commented on 2011-11-27 18:45 (UTC)

Ehm... and you can't just check the upstream's home page for the latest version of JDK? Have a look: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html. What does it say?: "Java SE 7u1 This release includes many security fixes. Learn more" Oh my gosh! I was wrong after all!

Det commented on 2011-11-27 18:43 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that I don't have to ask. Using dserban's logic google-chrome* packages wouldn't need to be updated either - but they are. Because it's _right_.

Babets commented on 2011-11-27 18:31 (UTC)

Det you are right, you can ask to some trusted user in aur-general mailing list for opinions and if they say you are right you can ask for orphaning this package.

Det commented on 2011-11-27 18:28 (UTC)

Right... 1) I have only flagged this package once, jre twice. 2) What the _hell_ do you mean with a "build log". JDK "7u1" has been released over a month ago - this one says it's "7", Q.E.D.: it's out-of-date. Why is it so hard to understand?

Det commented on 2011-11-27 14:19 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't.

Det commented on 2011-11-27 14:16 (UTC)

That's not the point here.. the package downloads whatever is the latest version in the Oracle servers (effectively skipping the md5sums too). The problem is that this is not a git package - if you don't touch the pkgver people don't know when a new one has come up. If you can't or won't understand that you have chosen the wrong package to maintain to begin with.

Det commented on 2011-11-27 13:50 (UTC)

Build log..? I just told you a bunch of stuff what's wrong. And this is the 3rd time anyway the 7u1 is being mentioned.

Det commented on 2011-11-25 12:18 (UTC)

@cro, yeah, I mentioned the pkgver thing over 2 weeks ago. See the post right before yours. Anyways, I cleaned up the package quite a bit. Here's some of the changes: - download the 31MB JRE tarball instead of the 91MB JDK one (verified functionality with 'j7z' and: java.com/en/download/installed.jsp?detect=jre&try=1). Install size only decreased by about 8 megabytes, though - do this by using the source array - also remove 'lynx' from makedeps - update the pkgver to '7u1' - use the package() function - use the mv/install/mkdir commands 'more efficiently' - separate the 'install/cp' stuff from the 'mv/rm' stuff - remove curly brackets ("{" and "}") from the PKGBUILD, since they seem to be something the repo packagers want to get rid of - replace "${startdir}"s with "$srcdirs" - use a 'common function' in the .install file (used in all of the functions) and echo an empty line before the license talk Overall I managed to cut the 61 lines of the PKGBUILD down to 45 (-16). But let's cut the crap, here's the tarball: http://www3.zippyshare.com/v/1215983/file.html

Babets commented on 2011-11-24 12:44 (UTC)

I agree with cro: wget http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/jdk/7u1-b08/jdk-7u1-linux-x64.tar.gz works so putting the url in the source array should work so why using lynx? Same thing for jdk.

cro commented on 2011-11-23 14:59 (UTC)

Why this hack with downloading the tarball from oracle using lynx and wget? Why not specify it as a source so that it will be verified with a checksum and stuff? Shouldn't the package version reflect the patchlevel of the software? Current seems to be 7u1 at the moment.

Det commented on 2011-11-07 13:46 (UTC)

This too should probably have a pkgver of "7u1" instead of "7".

Det commented on 2011-11-07 13:44 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't the pkgver have been updated into 7u1 (like almost 3 weeks ago)?

Det commented on 2011-10-28 16:16 (UTC)

pacman -Rdd jdk7-openjdk; [whateveraurtoolyougot] -S jdk

techlive commented on 2011-10-27 10:11 (UTC)

@Det Jdk indeed provides the 'java-environment',but while you are trying to replace the openjdk with jdk,the jre need to be install first as dependency which will fail passing the requirements check as not privoding the 'java-environment',so the replacement will get stucked here,just because the openjdk provides both java-runtime and java-enviroment and the jre only provide the java-runtime,the uninstllation of openjdk will be stopped because of some packages like eclipse need java-environment.How this problem be solved?

student975 commented on 2011-10-16 17:20 (UTC)

This way we have the same package twice: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51836 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 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

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

kkl2401 commented on 2011-10-16 16:11 (UTC)

Updated.

Det commented on 2011-09-07 08:29 (UTC)

@ioos, you don't. Jdk provides 'java-environment(=7)': https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=51906

rtimush commented on 2011-09-06 10:53 (UTC)

Agree with Boris-B, src.zip is an important part of the JDK.

commented on 2011-09-03 08:18 (UTC)

How do I replace openjdk6 with jre when there are dependents of java-environment?

dotboris commented on 2011-09-01 15:56 (UTC)

In the PKGBUILD the src.zip file is removed form the root of the jdk install directory. This file is used by IDEs like eclipse to determine the name of certain thing such as function arguments. I think it would be preferable to leave it in the install.

kelytha commented on 2011-08-30 15:16 (UTC)

@kralyk: oops, you are right. I think I also understand why is it like this. NetBeans wants to have a JDK to be able to also develop Java apps in it. Didn't consider this at first, as I want to use it only for PHP development.

kralyk commented on 2011-08-30 14:40 (UTC)

@kelytha: I believe you're wrong, the 'java-environment' is provided by the jdk package.

kelytha commented on 2011-08-29 17:39 (UTC)

The PKGBUILD has an error. It doesn't has java-environment in the provides array, thus NetBeans couldn't be installed from pacman. I have corrected the PKGBUILD and installed it on my machine, but couldn't upload it here.

karol_007 commented on 2011-08-28 16:57 (UTC)

Just for the record: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2011-August/021671.html

cuihao commented on 2011-08-28 14:21 (UTC)

Why removed from community repo?

spider-mario commented on 2011-08-28 14:03 (UTC)

No, it’s not anymore. http://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=jre

Syco commented on 2011-08-28 11:50 (UTC)

md5sum's array is wrong, please add '45c15a6b4767288f2f745598455ea2bf' at the end.

msquared commented on 2011-08-27 20:19 (UTC)

Already in community repository. Please request deletion.

msquared commented on 2011-08-27 20:19 (UTC)

Already in community repository. Please request deletion.