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: 0.127026
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 .. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 .. 81 Next › Last »

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

nihilnovi 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.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 .. 81 Next › Last »