Le 18/04/2014 02:15, DJ Lucas a écrit :
On 04/17/14 19:11, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/13/14 05:17, Pierre Labastie wrote:
Hi,
While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should
have
the same
On 04/13/14 05:17, Pierre Labastie wrote:
Hi,
While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should have
the same version number as the previous ones.
How should I name them?
-
On 04/17/14 19:11, DJ Lucas wrote:
On 04/13/14 05:17, Pierre Labastie wrote:
Hi,
While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should
have
the same version number as the previous ones.
How
Hi,
While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should have
the same version number as the previous ones.
How should I name them?
- OpenJDK-1.7.0.51-{i686,x86_64}-bin-2
-
Em 13-04-2014 07:17, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
Hi,
While icedtea has a new version, OpenJDK is still at 1.7.0_51. My concern is
that I built new binary JDK's, but that in our naming scheme, they should have
the same version number as the previous ones.
How should I name them?
- not upload
