Em 30-01-2016 03:26, DJ Lucas escreveu:
>
>
> On 1/29/2016 4:29 PM, BLFS Trac wrote:
>> What I read is that 8u71 has security fixes, but not 8u72, which
>> they told
>> to be ''improvements''.
>
> Not exactly.
Found it at
https://blogs.oracle.com/java/entry/new_release_jdk_8u71_and
{{{
New Release JDK 8u71 and JDK 8u72
By Yolande Poirier-Oracle on Jan 19, 2016
JDK 8u71 and 8u72, two new Java 8 updates are now available. Oracle
strongly recommends that most Java SE users upgrade to the latest Java
8u71 CPU release, which includes important security fixes. Java SE 8u72
is a patch-set update, including all of 8u71 plus additional features.
}}}
Sorry if I was not exact, having used "improvements" instead of
*additional features*.
> The Java release schedule is an odd duck. The way they are
> releasing the distributed binaries now is that odd number update (on
> release schedule) is a CPU (critical patch update), which is security
> patches and regression fixes to the previous PSU (patch set update).
> PSUs are the even numbered updates, which is the previous CPU update
> revision +1 and includes the security fixes in that CPU. PSUs are
> feature changes and enhancements - and aren't usually pushed to java.com
> (binary release for regular users) for a while after release (if at all).
>
> This explains the CPU vs PSU releases:
>
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/cpu-psu-explained-2331472.html
>
>
> As to the CPU release schedule and planning (and lately PSU, with its
> CPU+1 update):
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alerts-086861.html
>
> This partially explains the oddball release numbering:
>
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/jdk-version-number-scheme-1918258.html
> There was a post on the old -dev list that explained it in more detail,
> but I'm unable to find it right now.
>
> In addition to all of that, they have even by 20 (20, 40, 60, 80) for
> "Limited" (off cycle updates). And finally, all other numbers in the
> space are reserved for special updates, usually for particularly nasty
> bugs or security flaws. 7u7, 7u17 and 7u67 were the last three (though
> 67 is listed as Limited on the history, think this is a typo), haven't
> been any for 8 yet. See a pattern there?
>
> https://www.java.com/en/download/faq/release_dates.xml
>
> As to which version to use...I keep my Windows clients who use JRE/JDK
> on the CPU releases (and disable automatic updates and deploy via GPO or
> like) unless a new feature or bug fix is needed (which has yet to happen).
>
> All that said, given the audience, I think PSU/Limited/Special is the
> correct release for BLFS. These designations do not mean unstable, just
> newer and not largely tested in the wild (but still tested pretty
> thoroughly, at least among the java devs).
Thank you very much for this text. I will keep it in my folder of
important information.
--
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
--
[]s,
Fernando, aka Sísifo
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
