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: 0.90
First Submitted: 2011-08-27 17:56 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-11-16 14:08 (UTC)

Dependencies (12)

Required by (1733)

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 .. 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 .. 81 Next › Last »

Det commented on 2012-04-28 10:19 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. First compliment I guess.

<deleted-account> 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.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 .. 81 Next › Last »