Bruce, I know that you are in a hurry because of the trip. I am worried. I believe you forgot we combined a couple of days ago to name OpenJDK-1.0.7.40-2.4.1. That is why in the diff I sent, I changed everything that way, for the "About Java" page, too. The directories for the tarballs are named like that, and will break the instructions in the book. The reason for this convention is that sometimes just the icedtea version changes, not the jdk. It is possible to have a sequency like:
OpenJDK-1.0.7.40-2.4.1 OpenJDK-1.0.7.40-2.4.2 . . . It has happened in the past, IIRC, more than one time. So, if only icedtea changes, the book need a new openjdk, however with the same name as the previous one. I have difficulty of thinking about two versions of a package with the same versions. It is a contradiction the same sentence. Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, all were obliged to change this way. Also, if the tarballs do not have the icedtea version in the name, we risk to have two different packages with the same name, same directory, or will have to name a directory with version like OpenJDK-1.0.7.40-2.4.1, which at the end is a more complicated way of saying that the version is really OpenJDK-1.0.7.40-2.4.1, and so on. And more, how can we distinguish between the two versions in anduin? One will replace the other. Please, when you have time, think about it and reconsider the diff I sent. I noticed you did not use it, because we were thinking in different things. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
