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: 1087
Popularity: 0.88
First Submitted: 2011-08-27 17:56 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-11-16 14:08 (UTC)

Dependencies (12)

Required by (1732)

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 .. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 .. 81 Next › Last »

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.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 .. 81 Next › Last »