On Aug 29, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: > Am 08/29/2012 06:48 PM, schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile: >> Hi Andrea, * >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 06:38:48PM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> I found this commit from Marcus, from a few days ago: >>> >>>> Author: marcus >>>> Date: Fri Aug 24 22:17:10 2012 >>>> New Revision: 1377138 >>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1377138&view=rev >>>> Log: >>>> #i120681# Updated the link to JRE 6 to point to the lastest build instead >>>> of a fixed version. >>> >>> Now, the idea of updating the link is correct, but if I recall >>> correctly the safest solution is to download the file we explicitly >>> mentioned (see the diff at the URL above for more details): >>> downloading a certain JRE version will still leave the doubt on >>> whether the user should get 32-bit or 64-bit files, like the ones >>> listed in >>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre-6u32-downloads-1594646.html > > I've changed it because I thought to point to a specific version doesn't make > any sense. > > Maybe I haven't followed the Windows <--> JRE 6/7 discussions not closely > enough. :-/ > >>> Unless we know that all work (and from what I heard not all of them >>> do) it would be good to at least mention they need to use the >>> "Windows x86 Offline (32-bit)" file, but not having tried I won't >>> change the page again. Did anybody try? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andrea. >> >> According to Andreas http://markmail.org/message/w6x6e4dlzgwtfyd7 Base >> needs a very specific version of JRE 6, may be this is worth to be >> mentioned somewhere because pointing to the latest jre 6 won't work for >> Base users. > > @Andreas: > Is that true, is there really a hard dependency for a specific JRE version?
And if this is so then we should understand why. Regards, Dave > > Thanks > > Marcus >
