Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/08/08 10:44 CST: > I would like to add an alternative view. Although having a binary > package in the book is not preferable, I think this can be an exception.
Your view is highly appreciated. After thinking about it, I'm not sure we need to comment out the source installation at all. It is from late September last year which means it is not even six months old yet. I don't see the harm in placing a note on the JDK page explaining the situation with the Sun devels and why the source build uses jar files much older than the binary files. That way the user can *decide for herself* if she wants the binary or source version. Additionally, it keeps the instructions for the source build around for reference or whatever. > The text could describe the circumstances why we are making that > exception. It could also say that the source installation procedures > are expected to be in the next version of the book when OpenJDK is released. But that could be a *long* time. DJ mentioned that not until the version 7 will it be considered a stable release. No telling when that may come about. > The reason I would like to see the binary instructions in the book is > that they are not trivial. Agreed, that's why I'd like to see both kept in the book with a simple note saying we are aware the source build is a bit old and let the user choose which version she wants. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 10:50:00 up 20 days, 2:35, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.01, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
