Package Details: jre 23.0.1-1

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: LicenseRef-custom
Conflicts: jdk
Provides: java-runtime, java-runtime-headless, java-runtime-headless-jdk, java-runtime-jdk23, jre23-jdk, jre23-jdk-headless
Submitter: td123
Maintainer: dbermond
Last Packager: dbermond
Votes: 1086
Popularity: 0.119396
First Submitted: 2011-08-27 17:56 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-11-16 14:08 (UTC)

Dependencies (12)

Required by (1730)

Sources (9)

Pinned Comments

dbermond commented on 2024-03-19 19:54 (UTC)

  • Important notice:

As was made with the java packages in the official repositories, jdk now provides the jre alongside it, and both packages conflict with each other. During the package upgrade to version 22, act accordingly to your needs. For example, if you have both jdk and jre installed, only jdk will be sufficient, as it now also contains the runtime environment, and jre can be uninstalled. If you have only jre installed, no action is required.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 .. 81 Next › Last »

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/

<deleted-account> 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

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 .. 81 Next › Last »