Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > Em 17-07-2013 23:35, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: >> Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> > >>> >>> OpenJDK-1.0.7.40-2.4.1 >>> OpenJDK-1.0.7.40-2.4.2 >> >> Did you render the book? The title of the section is >> OpenJDK-1.7.0.40/IcedTea-2.4.1. Actually, the IcedTea part is actually >> not that critical as it is just a build harness. > > I indeed saw that title in r11452. I am so sorry to bother you with > that, more yet when you must be in a hurry organizing the luggage to travel.
Yes, I need to do that in a few minutes. > I am a little less worried. You say that there is no possibility of > vulnerabilities or bugs with two different versions of icedtea, only > with different versions of jdk? I don't know about that. I do think that probably the impetus to update only because icedtea has changes is low. From what I can see, icedtea is mostly, but not all, scripts. A lot of it is for the tests. > Then it is just for build problems that > they bother to produce a new icedte before a new jdk is released, right? > I am trying to understand, and indeed, was not understanding. Then I > will have just to check that the new icedtea builds OpenJDK correctly, > for the book be updated accordingly. > > Am I understanding better now? I think that OpenJDK is a lot more likely to force a change in OpenJDK rather than the other way around. >>> It has happened in the past, IIRC, more than one time. So, if only >>> icedtea changes, the book need a new openjdk, >> >> Really? Why? > > Because a new binary OpenJDK tarball has to be produced. Or not? Perhaps > I am starting to understand. Repeating again, to be sure I understand, > when a new icedtea is released, we can update just the icedtea part, > without bothering to produce a new tarball? I think so. We produced, or at least I did, the current jdk from the older binary tarballs. Icedtea may change to get different jdk tarballs. > I just want things to be right. The tarballs I sent have icedtea version > in the name and internally in the main directory. So they have to be > repacked with different name, and the md5sums must be changed, sizes > should be ok. Should I do it and upload again? No. I don't think that's needed. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
