> On Oct 28, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Michael Hall wrote:
>
>> On Oct 28, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>
>> On 28/10/2017 15:12, Michael Hall wrote:
>>> I think I may of raised this as an issue sometime earlier.
>>>
>>> I filed a bug report through bug report.java
>>> We will review your r
> On Oct 28, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> On 28/10/2017 15:12, Michael Hall wrote:
>> I think I may of raised this as an issue sometime earlier.
>>
>> I filed a bug report through bug report.java
>> We will review your report and have assigned it an internal review ID :
>> 9051382
On 28/10/2017 15:12, Michael Hall wrote:
I think I may of raised this as an issue sometime earlier.
I filed a bug report through bug report.java
We will review your report and have assigned it an internal review ID : 9051382
.
But as I recall earlier it was indicated that this involved files o
>
>>
>> What didn’t seem appropriate to the bug report is /usr/libexec/java_home.
>> This has been a useful platform specific command line tool for some time.
>> Currently it is somewhat broken.
>> This works…
>> /usr/libexec/java_home
>> /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-9.jdk/Contents/H
Use “9” instead of “1.9”
> On Oct 28, 2017, at 7:12 AM, Michael Hall wrote:
>
> I think I may of raised this as an issue sometime earlier.
>
> I filed a bug report through bug report.java
> We will review your report and have assigned it an internal review ID :
> 9051382 .
>
> But as I recall
I think I may of raised this as an issue sometime earlier.
I filed a bug report through bug report.java
We will review your report and have assigned it an internal review ID : 9051382
.
But as I recall earlier it was indicated that this involved files owned by
Apple. For one thing I think they
