Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
The irony here is that yesterday I updated my laptop to Ubuntu 9.04, and
(a) the Mercurial package does not completely install correctly
That is disturbing.
(b) even if it did, it is version 1.1.2.something, and OpenJDK requires
0.9.5.
I'm pretty sure that is not true. I'm using 1.2+ on my Mac and everything works
fine.
I don't think you 'have to' use 0.9.5, but you may need a different forest
extension and perhaps use the 'clone --pull' option to create repositories.
Even the jcheck extension was modified a while back and works with 1.2+.
The point being that if people need version X of something they will
download and use it one way or another.
That's kind of my feeling too. I recently loaded up an Ubuntu 7.10 system
(for JavaFX which uses this as their Linux build OS), and discovered that
the newest Mercurial I could get was 0.9.4, which was painful.
I got it to work, but it was frustrating that the versions get locked down
on a system, understandable for the distro to do this, but awkward for
doing development on those systems. I won't be using that system much,
but it was a bit enlightening.
-kto
-- Jon
On May 15, 2009, at 6:39 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Peter Zhelezniakov wrote:
Andrew Haley wrote:
We are not in a position to dictate to a user exactly which version of
JIBX will be installed on their system. Therefore, if JIBX is now a
dependency of OpenJDK we'll have to find a way to make OpenJDK work
with whatever versions of JIBX people choose.
To make it clear: JIBX is not a runtime dependency. It is used at build
time only.
OpenJDK does work regardless of JIBX presence.
Sure, thanks for clarifying, but it makes no difference to the real
situation: we are not in a position to dictate to someone building
OpenJDK exactly which version of JIBX will be installed on their system.
The build systems used by distros aren't guaranteed to have exactly
Version X of JIBX.
Andrew.
